Waltham Forest Council (202201559)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202201559

Waltham Forest Council

31 August 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

1. The complaint is about the landlord’s;
   1. Handling of remedial works at the resident’s home following a leak.
   2. Complaints handling.

Background

2. The resident has occupied the property since 2016 under a secure tenancy. The property is a 1950/1960, two bedroom, end terrace house.
3. The resident made the landlord aware of a leak in her bathroom in January 2021 which had caused the living room ceiling to collapse. Works were completed to make the ceiling safe. The resident then made contact with the landlord again in early 2022 advising that there had been ongoing plumbing issues since 2016. She stated that she had numerous plumbers to the property and they had all stated there was no leak. She stated the leak had caused damage to the walls, floors, ceilings, and décor within the bathroom and living room.
4. The landlord provided its stage one response on 18 March 2022. The landlord noted the number of plumbers that had attended the property and scheduled a surveyor’s appointment for 22 March 2022. As a result of the survey, a number of works were raised.
5. On or around the end of April/start of May 2022 the resident escalated her complaint to stage two. She stated works had began on 18 April 2022 but the bathroom had to be sealed off due to suspected asbestos, she was left without sanitation facilities and had to use a bucket for a toilet for two days. She stated the Victorian-style taps had been removed from the bathroom and disposed of and she had been left with no hot water. She had multiple phone calls with repairs operatives which left her upset due to their poor customer service. The resident advised that she had to move the sofa and catch leaking water using her cooking pots. She alleged that due to the smell and look of the property, she was unable to have visitors.
6. The landlord provided its stage two response on 25 May 2022 – it upheld the complaint. The landlord stated:
   1. Initial works completed in January 2021 were marked as complete following “make safe” works but that further works were required
   2. The works were raised after the surveyor attended in March 2022.
   3. A lack of hot water was inconvenient but it did not consider a response time of one day to be unreasonable.
   4. Recordings of the resident’s calls had been requested but were unavailable so it could not say with certainty what happened but it apologised for any distress caused to the resident by poor customer service.
   5. Works to the rear gate were outstanding and advised that a new order would be made for a new gate and overhaul of the back door.
   6. Any damage done to personal property would be claimed off of contents insurance and provided the resident with information on how to submit a claim to its insurance team.
   7. It would not investigate the loss of the Victorian taps as it would be “impossible” to establish if they were taken accidentally or deliberately and signposted her to make a report with the police if she felt a theft had occurred, or add the taps to her insurance claim.
   8. It apologised for the poor level of service experienced and the time and trouble taken to pursue the complaint.
   9. It acknowledged how upsetting the wait would have been and the distress and inconvenience the condition of the property would have caused.
7. At stage two the landlord offered £1400 compensation, £400 for the delay in repair works to the bathroom (£25 per month), £100 for lack of bathroom facilities (£25 for each day), £800 for distress and inconvenience (£50 per month) and £100 for time and trouble. It also stated it would follow up on outstanding works, provide an update regarding the taps, ensure an appointment was made for the works on the gate and back door, and organise a post-work inspection.
8. The resident remains dissatisfied and as a resolution, is looking for the outstanding works to be completed, namely on the back door, gate, plasterboard under the bath, and living room ceiling. She would also like compensation for the damaged personal items.

Assessment and findings

Scope of Investigation

9. This service acknowledges the resident’s comments that this had been a long-standing issue with a leak in the property. She said she had reported issues since the start of her tenancy in 2016.
10. While this may be the case this investigation will not seek to consider matters as far back as this time. This is because the Ombudsman expects residents to bring issues with which they are dissatisfied to the landlord’s attention in good time. This is set out in paragraph 42(c) of the Scheme, which explains that the Ombudsman may not investigate a complaint that was not brough to the attention of the landlord, by way of a formal complaint, within a reasonable period – which would normally be within six months of the matter arising.
11. The landlord confirmed its awareness of the leak in January 2021. Taking into consideration the circumstances of the case, this investigation will consider the events from January 2021 to the end of the landlord’s internal complaints process in May 2022. This report will consider the landlord’s handling of requested repairs to the resident’s property, including whether the landlord followed its policies and acted reasonably in all circumstances.
12. Another part of the resident’s complaint is regarding her wish to claim for personal items damaged as a result of the landlord’s handling of the leak in her property. This Service is unable to determine if a landlord is liable for damage to possessions as this would be a matter for insurers or the courts to determine. However, this investigation will consider the landlord’s response to her request to make a claim.
13. The resident has also advised that an outstanding repair relates to the ventilation system within her bathroom. This Service will only consider complaints that have exhausted the landlord’s internal complaints process. This is because the landlord must be provided with a fair opportunity to respond to the resident’s complaint at both stages. This is set out in paragraph 42(a) of the Scheme. As this did not form part of the initial complaint this will not be considered by the Ombudsman.

The landlord’s handling of remedial works at the resident’s home following a leak

14. The landlord’s repairs policy states emergency works will be completed within 24 hours, urgent works within five days, routine works within 21 days, and other, more specific works within 45 days.
15. The resident reported a leak and collapsed living room ceiling to the landlord in January 2021. “Make safe” works were completed the same day. This was appropriate and within its repairs policy. The landlord logged follow-up works on 5 January 2021 described as “Surveyed ceiling and further work required when work in bathroom has been done”. These works had a target date of 23 January 2021 and were set to compete on 4 March 2022. This Service has seen no evidence of any works completed within this time. This is not in line with the landlord’s repairs policy.
16. The resident submitted a formal complaint in early 2022, the exact date is unknown. She described an ongoing leak within the property which had caused extensive damage to the walls, flooring, ceilings, and décor along with damage to some of her personal property. She stated that she had reported this numerous times and had over ten plumbers at the property. The landlord responded on 18 March 2022 advising it had made an appointment for a surveyor to attend the residents property. While this was not an appropriate complaint response, this was a practical response to attempt to resolve the repairs.
17. Following the survey completed on 22 March 2022 seven repairs were noted and raised; “remove fiberglass bathtub and renew with seal, renew tiling to bathroom, renew timber floor to bathroom including joists, renew poly-safe flooring to bathroom, room dec to bathroom, renew water damaged plasterboard to living room ceiling skim and paint” and lastly “renew lock to rear gate”.
18. Around the end of April/start of May 2022, the resident requested her complaint be raised to stage two. She stated that after the works had begun her bathroom was sealed off due to suspected asbestos, during this time she had no access to sanitation facilities and had to use a bucket for a toilet for two days. She advised that her hot water stopped working, the Victorian taps in her bathroom were removed and she had multiple unpleasant phone calls with the repairs contractor which left her upset. She stated that there was no ceiling in the front room, she was having to place pots to catch the leak, a number of her personal items had been damaged and the property smelled which was causing her to cough.
19. The landlord issued its stage two response on 24 May 2022. It confirmed that its repairs log stated works were completed on 4 March 2022 which must have been inaccurate. It confirmed the resident’s report of having no hot water had been received and completed the following day but it recognised that a lack of hot water was inconvenient. It did not consider a response time of one day to be unreasonable. The response time of one day was in line with the landlords repairs policy of 24 hours for emergency repairs, this was reasonable.
20. The landlord stated that it had requested call recordings of the conversations had with the resident and the repairs contractor but these were not available, and as such, it could not say for certain what had happened, but apologised for any distress caused. In the absence of independent witnesses or supporting evidence a landlord is sometimes constrained in how far it can investigate an allegation of this nature. In this case, there does not appear to be any such evidence or witnesses, and therefore the landlord’s conclusions were reasonable. It was also reasonable for the landlord to acknowledge that, whether the allegation was true or not, the matter had caused distress to the resident.
21. The landlord confirmed that works to the rear gate were outstanding and advised that a new work order for a new gate and an overhaul of the back door would be arranged. This was appropriate action given the outstanding works.
22. The landlord stated that any damage done to personal property and belongings should be claimed under the resident’s contents insurance. It went on to state that the resident could make a claim against the landlord and provided her with information on how she could go about making that claim. This was an appropriate response which clearly explained the available options to the resident and signposted her accordingly to allow her to make a claim.
23. The landlord stated it would not investigate the loss of the Victorian taps as it would be “impossible” to establish if they were taken accidentally or deliberately. In the Ombudsman’s view, the landlord should not have advised that it would “not investigate this” as this Service expects landlords to take seriously and fully consider any allegations made about its staff members. It is noted, nonetheless, that the landlord did then go on to signpost the resident to the police and make contact with its repairs contractor in an effort to source the items. This was an appropriate response.
24. The landlord apologised for the poor level of service experienced, acknowledged how upsetting the wait would have been for the resident, and the distress and inconvenience the condition of the property would have caused. It also apologised for the time and trouble the resident had taken to pursue the matter. It offered a total of £1,400 compensation, £400 for the delay in repair works to the bathroom (£25 per month), £100 for lack of bathroom facilities (£25 for each day), £800 for distress and inconvenience (£50 per month) and £100 for time and trouble.
25. The landlord’s compensation policy does not state exact compensation calculations, as such the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance has been consulted. As per the remedies guidance, where there has been a failure which has adversely affected the resident but has resulted in no permanent impact, compensation of between £100 and £600 is appropriate. As such the landlords offered compensation is proportionate.
26. In addition to compensation the landlord stated it would follow up on the outstanding works, ensure an appointment was arranged regarding the gate and back door by 21 May 2022, and arrange a post-work inspection no later than 17 June 2022.
27. This Service has been made aware, by the resident, that some of the repairs are still ongoing, namely, the skimming and painting of the living room ceiling, the repair of the back gate and door and the removal of a rotten piece of plasterboard underneath the bath. This Service expects the landlord to follow through on any promises it makes to residents, or to provide timely and detailed reasons for why it cannot. It is clear that the promises made in the landlord’s stage two response have not been adhered to, and its repairs policy has not been followed, as such a finding of maladministration has been made.

The landlord’s complaints handling

28. The Ombudsman’s complaint handling code states “landlords should recognise the difference between a service request and a complaint. A service request is a request from a resident to their landlord requiring action to be taken to put something right. Service requests should be recorded, monitored and reviewed regularly. A complaint should be raised when the resident raises dissatisfaction with the response to their service request”.
29. The resident submitted a formal complaint in early 2022, the exact date is unknown. She described an ongoing leak within the property which had caused extensive damage to the walls, flooring, ceilings and décor. She stated that she had reported this numerous times and had over ten plumbers to the property. The landlord responded on 18 March 2022 advising it had made an appointment for a surveyor to attend the resident’s property.
30. It appears to this Service the landlord has treated the complaint as a service request, not as a complaint. As such there was no acknowledgement of the substantive issue, no decision on the complaint, and no details of how the resident could escalate her complaint if she remained dissatisfied. This is ultimately a service failure. The landlord acknowledged this failure in its stage two response but provided no offer of redress. Had the complaint been investigated and treated as a complaint it could have allowed for the landlord to resolve the issue sooner and would have made the resident feel as if she had been listened to and her complaint was being taken seriously.

Determination

31. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of remedial works at the resident’s home following a leak.
32. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman scheme, there was service failure in the landlord’s complaints handling.

Orders

33. Within four weeks of the date of this determination, the landlord is:
    1. To pay the resident £2000, comprised of:
       1. £400 (£25 per month), as previously offered at stage two, for the delay in repair works to the bathroom, if this has not already been paid.
       2. £100 (£25 per day), as previously offered at stage two, for the lack of bathroom facilities, if this has not already been paid.
       3. £800 (£50 per month), as previously offered at stage two, for the distress and inconvenience caused, if this has not already been paid.
       4. £100, as previously offered at stage two, for the time and trouble taken to pursue the works, if this has not already been paid.
       5. £400 (£25 per month) for the delay in repair works to the back gate, back door and living room ceiling.
       6. £200 for the distress and inconvenience caused by the still outstanding repair works.
34. Within six weeks of the date of this determination, the landlord is to arrange appointments with the resident to have the rear gate replaced, the back door overhauled, the plasterboard under the bath replaced and the living room ceiling skimmed and painted.
35. Within 12 weeks of the date of this determination, the landlord is to arrange a post work inspection of all the works that have been completed relevant to this complaint.
36. Within the above stated timeframes the landlord is to provide the Ombudsman with evidence of compliance with these orders.