London Borough of Redbridge (202234400)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202234400

London Borough of Redbridge

18 March 2024

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 handling of and response to:
   1. requests for a housing transfer.
   2. a planned kitchen refurbishment.
   3. reports of repairs to the bathroom and shower.
2. The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s complaint handling and record keeping.

Jurisdiction

3. What we can and cannot consider is called the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. This is governed by the Housing Ombudsman Scheme (the 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.
4. In accordance with paragraph 42 (a) of the Scheme, the following aspect of the complaint is outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction:
   1. The landlord’s handling and response to requests for a housing transfer.
5. Paragraph 42(a) of the Scheme says that the Ombudsman may not consider complaints which are made prior to having exhausted a landlord’s complaints procedure.
6. In this instance the resident would need to log a complaint with the landlord about the above issue as the Ombudsman has not seen evidence that this complaint has exhausted the landlord’s complaints procedure. The resident may be able to bring this complaint to the Ombudsman if she remains dissatisfied once the issue has been through the landlord’s complaints process.

Background

7. The resident holds a secure tenancy with the landlord in a 2-bedroom house. The resident lives with her son both of whom have disabilities, which the landlord is aware of.
8. On 28 March 2022 the resident raised a formal complaint with the landlord. She said that the new kitchen program was due to be rolled out in 2021-2022 and that she was still waiting for the work to commence. She added that this was needed for her and her son’s disability needs. Further, she explained that she had contacted the landlord’s contractor to have her kitchen floor fixed and was told it would need a surveyor and was directed back to the landlord’s asset team. The resident also stated that there were live gas pipes exposed.
9. On 21 April 2022 the landlord responded to the complaint at stage 1 of its complaint process. It upheld the complaint and apologised for the delay in responding and for the inconvenience caused for not meeting the resident’s expectations. It said that she was due a kitchen a ‘couple’ of years ago, but the pandemic struck, and nothing had been done since. It added that it had reassessed the kitchen in January 2022 and found it to be in poor condition, ‘along with few other repairs’, including the flooring. It explained that the kitchen and bathroom were in its program of works for 2022 and that it was currently in the tendering process.
10. In response the resident informed the landlord that she had received a letter from its contractor to survey the kitchen, but she had been unable to arrange an appointment with them. The resident subsequently asked the landlord to escalate her complaint on 5 June 2022. She said that the letter had stated that a surveyor would attend in April 2022 and work would commence in May 2022, but this had not happened. She asked the landlord to investigate the delay.
11. On 14 June 2022 the landlord raised a repair order to renew a broken double-glazed unit in the kitchen, to apply 2 coats of white emulsion to the bathroom ceiling, and to ‘remove the bath panel’. The landlord’s repair records suggest this work was completed on 13 October 2022. A further repair was raised on 21 December 2022 to re-install the kitchen fan and paint the bathroom and lounge ceilings. The landlord’s repair records suggest this work was completed on 9 and 10 January 2023. On 9 January 2023 the resident informed the landlord that ‘leaving the shower where it was’ caused damp which was getting worse. On 3 March 2023 the landlord’s contractor carried out a refurbishment survey of the bathroom. On 6 April 2023, the landlord relocated the shower unit to the back wall to resolve the issues.
12. On 6 April 2023 following contact from the resident, this Service wrote to the landlord and asked it to respond to the resident’s complaint about outstanding repairs within the property at stage 2 by 12 May 2023. On 17 May 2023, the landlord issued its stage 2 response (final response). It upheld the complaint and apologised for the delay in outstanding works being completed and its lack of communication regarding repairs. In summary, it said it had instructed another contractor to inspect her kitchen and asked the resident to contact it to arrange a suitable appointment. It said that her shower was renewed on 6 April 2023, and it had instructed its contractor to inspect the bathroom to identify any outstanding works.
13. The resident asked the Ombudsman to investigate her complaint on 14 June 2023. She said that the stress of being without a working shower and an adequate kitchen had caused detrimental harm to her and her son’s disabilities and mental well-being. She added that the contractor had not viewed the bathroom as promised in the landlord’s stage 2 response and that she was still chasing a date to discuss the plans for her kitchen. As an outcome, she wanted the landlord to move her. The landlord installed a new kitchen on 30 October 2023.

Assessment and findings

Planned kitchen refurbishment

14. When investigating a complaint, the Ombudsman applies its Dispute Resolution Principles. These are high level good practice guidance developed from the Ombudsman’s experience of resolving disputes, for use by everyone involved in the complaints process. There are three principles driving effective dispute resolution: 

a. Be fair – treat people fairly and follow fair processes.

b. Put things right.

c. Learn from outcomes. 

15. The Ombudsman must first consider whether a failing on the part of the landlord occurred, and if so, whether this led to any adverse effect or detriment to the resident. If it is found that a failing did lead to an adverse effect, the investigation will then consider whether the landlord has taken enough action to ‘put things right’ and ‘learn from outcomes’.
16. The landlord’s website states that kitchens will usually be replaced if they are over 20 years old or are in poor condition. In this case, the landlord did not dispute that the kitchen needed replacing. The landlord repairs timescales state that it will carry out routine repairs within 28 days.
17. While it was appropriate for the landlord to explain the reason for the delay in the kitchen refurbishment and apologise for this, it took the landlord, following its January 2022 inspection a further 19 months to replace her kitchen. This was a considerable delay that would have caused significant distress and inconvenience to the resident.
18. The landlord’s stage 1 response stated that its January 2022 inspection identified a ‘few other repairs’, yet this Service has seen no evidence of this inspection such as repairs records or a survey inspection report. In addition, there is evidence from the resident that the refurbishment of the kitchen, amongst other housing matters, was discussed between the landlord and the resident’s MP. However, the landlord has not provided this evidence, despite this Service’s requests for it to do so. This indicates issues with the landlord’s record keeping, which this Service has identified as a significant issue throughout. Therefore, a finding of maladministration has been made in respect of this.
19. The landlord acknowledged that the kitchen was in poor condition and that repairs were required, however, there is no evidence that it took any meaningful action following its inspection in January 2022. Having identified repairs to the kitchen the landlord should have carried these out within its repair timescales. It was inappropriate in the circumstances for it to wait for the kitchen to be refurbished for it to fix these issues, particularly as the resident had raised health and safety concerns about her kitchen. In addition, the landlord would have been aware of her and her son’s disabilities, yet it appears no consideration was given to this. These were serious failings on the part of the landlord.
20. The landlord’s contractor wrote to the resident in April 2022 to arrange a survey for the kitchen replacement that month, with works proposed to commence in May 2022. However, despite what appeared to be several attempts by the resident to arrange an appointment, the survey did not happen. Indeed, it is unclear if any survey occurred during this period. This would have caused distress and frustration to the resident who had already waited a considerable time for the refurbishment to take place. Furthermore, this Service is only aware of this proposed survey due to evidence provided by the resident, which again indicates further issues with the landlord’s record keeping.
21. The landlord’s repair records showed that it was not until October 2022 that any repairs to the kitchen were carried out, where it renewed the glass to the kitchen window. There is no evidence of any other repair to the kitchen during the period of the resident’s complaint, despite the landlord recognising early on that the kitchen was in ‘poor condition’. This was unacceptable and the landlord would have known that it was leaving a disabled resident with a potentially unsafe kitchen.
22. Evidence provided by the resident showed that the landlord’s contractor published its plan for the new kitchen on 27 January 2023. However, it was not until the beginning of March 2023, following the resident chasing on at least 2 occasions, that the landlord confirmed that the work would take place on 13 March 2023. This did not happen. This was a further delay in the planned kitchen refurbishment. This caused further distress and inconvenience to the resident who had moved her belongings out of the kitchen for the work to commence.
23. While the Ombudsman acknowledges that there was a dispute between the landlord and its contractor that prevented the work from taking place in March 2023, it is unclear why it took the landlord until 24 July 2023 to instruct another contractor to carry out a kitchen refurbishment survey. Moreover, its records indicated that it was unaware that plans for the kitchen had already been drawn up in January 2023. This again likely indicates issues with the landlord’s record keeping and internal communications.
24. Overall, there were significant failings in the landlord’s handling and response to the kitchen refurbishment. There were considerable delays in surveying the kitchen. In addition, the proposed commencement dates in May 2022 and March 2023 did not take place as planned. Furthermore, the evidence suggested that the landlord was slow to react to these setbacks, causing further delays. The landlord also failed to carry out repairs to the kitchen despite multiple opportunities for it to do so. It is therefore reasonable to conclude that the resident was living with an inadequate kitchen for a prolonged period and this adverse effect was likely exacerbated due to the household’s disabilities.
25. This amounts to maladministration from the landlord. In line with this Service’s remedies guidance awards of between £600 to £1,000 compensation should be made where the Ombudsman has found failure which significantly impacted the resident. In view of this, orders are made below for remedy.

Repairs to the bathroom and shower

26. On 14 June 2022 the landlord raised a repair order to apply 2 coats of white emulsion to the bathroom ceiling and to remove the bath panel. While it is unclear what prompted this, the landlord’s repair records showed that this work was not carried out until 13 October 2022. This was almost 3 months outside of its repair timescales. This was a failure on the part of the landlord.
27. On 9 January 2023 the resident informed the landlord that leaving the shower where it was had caused damp and mould on the ceiling which was getting worse. The resident stated that the landlord had asked its contractor to move the shower to the rear end of the bath to prevent mould and leaks but had not done so and asked what was causing the delays. Although the contractor dealt with the mould promptly, the landlord did not raise a repair order for the shower until 13 February 2023, over a month later.
28. Furthermore, the landlord did not relocate the shower until 6 April 2023, almost 3 months after the resident’s 9 January 2023 email. Overall, there was a considerable delay in repairs to the shower and the landlord failed to act in line with its repair timescales. These delays would have caused distress and inconvenience to the resident who was likely left without a properly working shower for months.
29. On 3 March 2023 the landlord’s contractor carried out a refurbishment survey of the bathroom. On 17 April 2023, the landlord ‘made good’ holes in the bathroom tiles and ceiling. However, this Service has not seen a copy of the survey report, which again highlights issues with the landlord’s record keeping. Additionally, while it is unclear if any other bathroom repairs were needed, the resident informed this Service in June 2023 that the landlord did not view the bathroom as committed to in its final response. While there is evidence of a further refurbishment survey of the bathroom in August 2023 it is unclear what or if any actions came from this.
30. Overall, there were considerable and avoidable delays with the repairs to the bathroom and shower. In addition, its communication with the resident was poor and there was no evidence that it kept her updated on any progress or possible delays. Furthermore, the landlord again failed to demonstrate consideration for the resident and her son’s disabilities. This amounts to maladministration from the landlord. In line with this Service’s remedies guidance awards of between £100 to £600 compensation should be made where the Ombudsman has found failure which has adversely affected the resident. In view of this, orders are made below for remedy.

Complaint handling

31. The landlord’s complaints policy states that it will respond to complaints at stage 1 within 10 working days. It adds that if a resident is dissatisfied with the outcome, they can request to escalate their complaint to stage 2. It states that it will respond to stage 2 complaints within 20 working days of receipt.
32. It took the landlord almost a month to respond to the resident at stage 1 of its complaints process, however it informed the resident of the delay and apologised for this in its formal response. This was appropriate and the landlord acted fairly in this respect.
33. However, on 5 June 2022 the resident asked the landlord to escalate her complaint to stage 2, yet it failed to respond to her. This led to the resident writing to her MP in September 2022. Evidence provided by the resident indicated that her MP raised these complaint issues directly with the landlord. While it is not entirely clear if the landlord responded to the MP this was a missed opportunity for the landlord to respond to her concerns at stage 2 of its complaints process. This would have caused distress and inconvenience to the resident who have likely felt that her concerns were being ignored.
34. The resident contacted this Service for assistance at the end of March 2023. We subsequently asked the landlord to respond to her complaint to within 10 working days by 24 April 2023. The landlord acted appropriately by acknowledging the complaint at stage 2 the same day. In addition, it informed the resident that due to the information it required its response would be delayed until 10 May 2023. However, it did not respond until the 17 May 2023. While this was a minor failing, it added to the overall delay in getting matters resolved for the resident.
35. Overall, it took the resident over a year to complete the landlord’s complaints process and the landlord should have escalated the resident’s complaint sooner. Further, it failed to acknowledge the delays or identify any learning in its final response. This amounts to maladministration and orders have been made below in line with this Service’s guidance.

Determination

36. In accordance with paragraph 42(a) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme the landlord’s handling and response to her requests for a housing transfer is outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction to investigate.
37. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in respect of its handling of and response to a planned kitchen refurbishment.
38. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in respect of its handling and response to reports of repairs to the bathroom and shower.
39. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in respect of its complaint handling.
40. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in respect of its record keeping.

Orders

41. The landlord must do the following within the next four weeks:
    1. Provide a written apology for the failures identified in this report.
    2. Pay the resident compensation of £1,625 comprised of:
       1. £1,000 for the significant distress and inconvenience caused by its handling of and response to a planned kitchen refurbishment.
       2. £450 for the distress and inconvenience caused by its handling of and response to repairs to the bathroom and shower.
       3. £175 for the distress and inconvenience caused by its complaint handling.
    3. Inspect the bathroom and shower and satisfy itself that they are fit for purpose. If any repairs are identified these must be carried out within its policy timescales. The landlord must share a copy of its findings and any resulting action plan with the Ombudsman and resident.
    4. Review the complaint handling in this case, with reference to the failings identified in this report, to determine what actions have been/will be taken to prevent a recurrence of these. The landlord should write to the Ombudsman with the outcome of this review.
    5. The landlord must review the Housing Ombudsman’s spotlight report on Spotlight report on Knowledge and Information Management (available at: KIM-report-v2-100523.pdf (housing-ombudsman.org.uk) and consider how it can apply the recommendations in the report to its current policies and procedures. The landlord should write to the Ombudsman with the outcome of this review.
42. The landlord should provide this Service with evidence of compliance with these orders within the timescale set out above.