The new improved webform is online now! Residents and representatives can access the form online today.

London Borough of Croydon (202209163)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202209163

London Borough of Croydon

30 April 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:
    1. The resident’s repairs reports after her mutual exchange.
    2. The complaint.

Background

  1. The resident is a tenant. The resident moved into the property, a 3-bedroom house, in March 2022 via mutual exchange.
  2. In March and early April 2022, the resident raised concern to the landlord that the property was not in the condition at her viewing, there were safety concerns, and there were repairs issues that included kitchen issues; ripped flooring; holes in walls; a deteriorating bannister; door issues including an inner front door with a smashed window and entrance doors not closing properly; bathroom issues; and missing gutters above a garage. On 19 April 2022, after emails and calls from the resident, repairs were raised for the front door; a garage door; an internal door with broken glass; and 2 toilets not flushing.
  3. On 21 April 2022, the resident complained. She confirmed that front and internal doors had been made safe and non-functional toilets had been remedied, but she was unhappy how long these took. She was unhappy that the landlord had refused to raise some repairs as they were not picked up at the inspection before the mutual exchange. She said that there were a number of outstanding repairs that included the bannister, and her son had now fallen and suffered a swollen ankle due to it coming away from a wall. The following day, a further repair was raised for the inner garage door, which was later cancelled on 25 August according to repairs records.
  4. In late April/early May 2022, the resident said that a kitchen unit door had fallen on her leg and she raised concern about the kitchen age/functionality; another kitchen cupboard deteriorating; metal worktop dividers; a lack of sink sealant causing damage and mould to a unit underneath; and an upstairs leak. On 28 April, a repair was raised for the kitchen sink sealant, which was completed on 5 May according to repairs records. The kitchen was referred to a team that carried out kitchen renewals but on 19 May, it was noted that unless it needed to be replaced, repairs should be raised. On 23 May, a repair was raised to remedy worktop edging strips and dividers; trace and remedy a bathroom leak; reseal around the kitchen sink; and remedy a kitchen unit coming away from a wall. These were completed on 6 June according to repairs records. On 23 May, a repair was also raised for the garage guttering, which was completed on 23 June according to repairs records.
  5. On 24 June 2022, the resident chased a complaint response. She added concerns that included internal doors not opening and closing properly. She said that she had reported issues with toilets over 4 times but only toilet had been fixed and the downstairs toilet did not flush. This meant she had to use the upstairs toilet which she struggled to get to as she had asthma. She said operatives had said isolation valves were needed in the bathrooms otherwise the water could not be stopped to do repairs. She said that a leak had been attended in May, but she had not been compensated for a missed appointment. She said that an operative had sealed the sink but had said a new worktop and sink was needed. She said that there was an insecure kitchen tap but she had heard nothing about the repair. She said that an inspector had visited and informed her that a new kitchen would be requested and new doors would be fitted. She complained that the property had not met a lettable standard at the start of the mutual exchange; she had experienced time and trouble chasing repairs, some of which were incomplete; and the landlord had not responded in line with its complaints policy.
  6. On 30 June 2022, a repairs inspector produced a report after an inspection. This appeared to note that works were required to replace a front internal door; decorate staircase wall; replace 3 smoke alarms and 1 carbon monoxide alarm; repair 5 kitchen cupboard doors; refix a bottom kitchen cupboard panel; repair a loose sink tap; replace a rear door lock; install an isolation valve so a toilet leak could be fixed; repair a toilet blockage; rehang/adjust 2 bedroom doors; and rehang/adjust all doors, which were less urgent.
  7. On 21 July 2022, the inspector internally noted that the property had no working smoke or carbon monoxide alarms and requested that “someone attend as a matter of urgency.” The same day, the inspector informed the resident that a contractor would be doing the smoke and carbon monoxide alarms and a reference would be provided as soon as they had this. The resident responded to query the status of other repairs such as the kitchen, toilet, and doors, then chased a response to the complaint on 29 July due to a lack of update.
  8. On 5 August 2022, the inspector internally emailed a works specification for works identified on 30 June. This included works to renew/overhaul a kitchen shelf, unit and door; decorate walls and ceilings; ease and adjust 8 doors; renew a PVC door lock; and carry out a CCTV survey.
  9. On 10 August 2022, the landlord provided a stage 1 response. It said that the mutual exchange process was different to the voids process and involved a visual inspection when the property was occupied. It noted that the resident had decided to proceed with the exchange after viewing the property in September 2021 and that a pre-inspection in February 2022 had identified no repairs. It said that contractors had been instructed to carry out electrical tests and install smoke alarms. It noted that the inspector had inspected the kitchen, and work had been completed in June. It said that the kitchen met the decent homes standard in terms of space and layout, but kitchen repairs would be monitored and it would be referred to a future kitchen programme if necessary. It said it understood that the majority of works were now complete and it apologised for delays in kitchen cupboard repairs. It apologised for the delay responding to the complaint, leading to the resident chasing a response, and said this was due to staffing issues that were now resolved.
  10. The same day, the landlord raised repairs for the bannister; front and back doors not locking correctly; the downstairs toilet not flushing; and overhaul of kitchen taps. The following day, the resident requested escalation of the complaint. The response had not addressed the pre-inspection not picking up obvious issues that went against health and safety standards, which she had had to live with for an extended period.
  11. On 16 August 2022, an operative attended for the front and back doors, but it was noted the resident did not allow the back door to be inspected as she had been told she would get a new door. The repair was subsequently cancelled as there was no evidence the contractor had been asked to provide a new door. On 22 August, the bannister repair was completed according to repairs records.
  12. On 1 September 2022, the contractor attended for the downstairs toilet flush and kitchen taps, where it was noted a WC leak was fixed, a tap was changed, and that there was a stack pipe blockage. On 5 September, the stack pipe was jetted, and it was noted the toilet flushed when flushed twice which indicated an issue with the flush not drainage. On 7 September, a repair was re-raised to remedy worktop edging strips, remedy worktop dividers coming away, trace and remedy bathroom leak, reseal around kitchen sink and draining board, remedy kitchen wall unit coming away from wall. This was completed the following day according to repairs records.
  13. The same month, the landlord contacted the resident about the complaint. It was confused about what stage the complaint was at as the repairs team had no record of a response. She confirmed part of her complaint related to repairs overlooked by the mutual exchange inspection. She also said that repairs she had been told would be done at 2 inspections remained outstanding. She restated outstanding issues, including a lack of fully functioning toilets and a bedroom window that could not open and close fully, and said she had since replaced the internal front door for £185.
  14. From September 2022 to February 2023, the landlord’s contractor wrote to the resident asking to carry out “an electrical test on the property.” In October 2022, the landlord’s inspector internally re-forwarded the works specification from 5 August for works identified on 30 June. The complaints team asked the inspector to confirm if and when all the works had been completed. They also noted that the specification did not match the inspection report, and that they would need to explain why certain repairs were not being carried out if this was the case. The complaints team noted that they “do not have the resources to supervise this” and asked the inspector to progress matters.
  15. On 7 November 2022, a follow on repair was raised to check and replace the toilet flusher after contact from the resident. Following this, a plumber attended and identified that a CCTV drain survey was required as the soil stack was blocked.
  16. On 29 November 2022, the landlord provided a stage 2 response. It apologised for delays at both complaint stages. It restated that mutual exchange inspections were visual only, outgoing tenants were responsible to ensure repairs were completed after the inspection, and it would then complete repairs reported by new tenants that fell under its responsibility. It noted that some repairs had been completed and some issues fell within tenant responsibility. It said works for smoke and carbon monoxide alarms were complete. It said the internal front door was damaged by police entry, and was tenant responsibility, but if this occurred before the resident moved in she could provide receipt for works she had done. It said repairs had been raised for the back door lock, kitchen units, sink and worktop, rehang and adjustment of internal doors, and water leaking from a shower. It said the June inspection showed only minor kitchen repairs were needed. It said that at the June visit a window could open and close. It noted that the bannister was repaired in August. It noted that the resident said she had been without fully functioning toilets since March, and said repairs for drain surveys and isolation valves were raised. It said it was clear there had been delays in raising or completing some works, offered £100, and said findings would be discussed internally. It noted that throughout, the resident had raised issues which conflicted with responses from its repairs team, so it had arranged a further inspection. It said it would ask for the report to be shared with the resident so she was aware of its findings.
  17. The same day, the resident responded. She was dissatisfied that the response had not incorporated findings from an inspection that day. She said a toilet still did not flush. There were no isolation valves except on an upstairs toilet. She highlighted that a latest landlord gas safety record confirmed there were no working smoke alarms. She queried the statement that a window could open and close as no one had tested it.
  18. On 9 December 2022, a repair was raised for a CCTV inspection. On 25 January 2023, a CCTV survey was carried out after which a drain descale was recommended. On 6 February, the drains were descaled and flushed, and it was recommended for a new toilet to be installed as there was heavy scale around a waste bend which could not be removed without breaking the toilet. It was also recommended to fit a new cistern as the current one was leaking. The Ombudsman understands from the resident that issues at the property were subsequently resolved after the involvement of a new surveyor.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s repairs reports after her mutual exchange

  1. The resident had concerns, including safety ones, about the property condition when she moved in. She felt the landlord’s inspection before the mutual exchange was inadequate and should have identified a number of issues she found on moving in. The landlord’s policies say that some repairs such as kitchen units, flooring, bathroom tiling and plaster are tenant responsibility, so it was reasonable if the resident was advised these was her responsibility. Her report that some kitchen units were replaced in September 2023 is positive. However, some aspects are not satisfactory.
  2. The level of detail for information provided by the landlord comes across as poor. The landlord provides limited direct repairs records such as repairs spreadsheet logs, and the information provided lacks sufficient detail about outcomes to contractor visits and when repairs were completed. The records for a June 2022 inspector survey are not clear about what issues were identified for further action by the landlord, and what issues were for the resident. The resident and landlord refer to other inspections such as one in November 2022 for which no records are supplied, despite this being requested along with clearer repairs records. This is not in line with the landlord’s obligations under paragraph 10 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme to provide information. Where the landlord has failed to provide adequate records, the resident’s account/evidence has been presumed to be accurate and reliable.
  3. The landlord indicates that, like other providers, it inspects properties to identify any health and safety issues or repairs, including damage, to be resolved before or after mutual exchanges. The landlord says no issues were identified at a February 2022 inspection before the resident moved into the property in March, but it provides no records for this inspection or what it involved. It provides a 2010 mutual exchange procedure, but this provides no information about inspection processes. For mutual exchanges, the landlord does not adhere to the same lettable standards as voids properties, but it should be able to better show what mutual exchange checks entail and provide relevant records. The 2010 mutual exchange procedure and evidence does not give confidence in the landlord’s approach, and indicates it has inadequate policies, procedures and processes for mutual exchanges and related administration. It was ordered in a previous May 2023 decision to review its mutual exchange process, but from the supply of the 2010 procedure in 2024 it has not done so in any significant way. The landlord should carry out a full review of its mutual exchange process and procedure.
  4. The resident reported a lack of an electric test and functioning smoke and carbon monoxide alarms. The December 2021 landlord gas safety record before the resident moved in said there were functioning smoke alarm and detectors then. The mutual exchange agreement notes there was a satisfactory electrical test certificate, but the landlord’s account that an electrical test was cancelled by the outgoing tenant before the mutual exchange undermines the accuracy of this. The June 2022 inspection noted that replacement of 3 smoke alarms and 1 carbon monoxide alarm was required. In July staff referred the issue to a contractor, which the August stage 1 confirmed, after which the contractor allegedly wrote to the resident from September 2022 to February 2023, asking to carry out “an electrical test on the property.” The November 2022 stage 2 said they were completed, but after this the resident said this was not true and she disputed receiving letters from the contractor.
  5. It is a common requirement in other social landlords’ mutual exchange policies for an electric inspection before an exchange takes place. It is concerning that the mutual exchange progressed without this or this being identified, and that no real steps were taken to carry out an electric test until the contractor first allegedly wrote to the resident in September 2022 (6 months after she moved in). It is also concerning that after it was identified that smoke and carbon monoxide alarms should be installed from June 2022, and the inspector asked for someone to urgently attend in July, they were not installed until around March 2023 according to the resident’s account, 9 months later. The communication also comes across as poor, as the resident repeatedly chased for updates from the landlord, and she disputes she received the letters from the contractor between September 2022 and February 2023, which the landlord did not investigate.  While the issue has had no wider significant impact, the landlord’s handling was not satisfactory given the safety concerns and obligations applicable from October 2022 under the Smoke and Carbon Monoxide Alarm (Amendment) Regulations 2022. The landlord should pay the resident £50 for the delays, distress and inconvenience.
  6. The resident reported issues on 9 April 2022 with external doors not opening and closing properly and a front internal door having broken glass. Such issues are understood to have caused the resident concern about the security of her home and led her to use makeshift solutions to try to keep doors secure. The landlord has an obligation under the ‘Right to Repair’ regulations to resolve issues with insecure doors in 1 day, but the April repairs took at least 10 days.
  7. The resident said she was told a rear door would be replaced, which is not evident. The June 2022 inspector report noted a repair to replace a rear door lock, which was raised with a delay in August. While the resident seems to have rejected the repair when attended the same month, as she believed she was promised a new door, this provided opportunity for the door to be repaired. The landlord could have been more effective and timely in communication however. Some August 2022 correspondence refers to the repair being an “overhaul” of the back door, which it is understandable could be interpreted as replacement, and the landlord did not say until November that it had raised a repair to replace the back door lock rather than the back door. The resident provides information that indicates she paid to replace the back door, however it is not clear the landlord should reimburse this given a lack of evidence that it identified this needed to be replaced.
  8. The landlord’s approach for the internal front door with broken glass was not satisfactory. The June 2022 inspector report noted a repair to replace a front internal door, which the resident chased, but it is not evident that this progressed. This suggests that the resident’s expectations about the repair were not managed effectively. The resident’s arranging replacement of the door herself in August 2022 is in line with tenants being responsible for glazing unless they have a crime reference number. However, the landlord should reasonably have identified the issue at the mutual exchange inspection and ensured that the outgoing tenant rectified the damage before leaving, rather than leaving it to the resident to resolve. It was therefore appropriate that the landlord indicated it would reimburse her costs if she provided receipts.
  9. The resident raised issues with internal doors sticking so that they were difficult to open and close, and she said she and her family got stuck in rooms on some occasions. The June 2022 inspection report made a note for doors to be adjusted and rehung, and these were incorporated into a works specification spreadsheet. The November 2022 stage 2 said a repair had been raised to rehang and adjust all internal doors, but it is not evident that such a repair was progressed, including if it was raised, if it was attended and the outcome. The resident’s arrangement for new internal doors to be fitted in October 2022 is in line with the landlord’s policy that internal doors, locks and frames are tenant responsibility. However, the landlord clearly committed to the repair, and the progress, communication, expectation management and record keeping for the repair is not satisfactory. This will have impacted the time it took for the resident to resolve the issue herself. The landlord should pay the resident £235, in recognition that she paid £185 to replace the door with broken glass, and for any distress and inconvenience caused by handling in respect to the doors.
  10. The resident reported a deteriorating bannister from at least 9 April 2022, and on 21 April the resident updated that the bannister had come away from the wall leading to her teenage son experiencing a swollen ankle. The bannister was not repaired until August after repeated chasing by the resident. The ‘Right to Repair’ regulations say that a loose bannister should be resolved in 3 days, which the repair exceeded by 193 days. The Ombudsman does not make definitive decisions about liability and personal injury, and we have seen no evidence that the issue has resulted in significant detriment. However, the repair was unreasonably delayed and clearly caused distress to the resident and her son. The landlord should pay the resident £50 in recognition of this.
  11. The resident reported that the sink was insecure and the worktop was damaged, and that these were causing water ingress and damp to plugs and the unit below. The landlord raised repairs which were attended in May 2022, where the resident said the operative sealed the sink but said a new sink and worktop were needed. The landlord’s investigation for the issue comes across as poor. There should have been clearer investigation of the specific concerns about the sink and worktop condition, including discussion with contractors and a clear assessment of the sink and worktop at inspections.
  12. The resident raised issues with toilets flushing. She explained that an inability to use a downstairs toilet meant she had to use an upstairs one, which she struggled to get to with health issues including asthma. The landlord responded to initial April 2022 reports in a timely manner. However, it took 3 months for a stack pipe blockage to be jetted after this was noted at the June inspection, and it took 7 months for a CCTV survey after this was also noted at the June inspection according to the works specification spreadsheet. The resident confirms the issue was not resolved until around September 2023. Her account indicates the landlord felt it was meeting its obligations by the upstairs bathroom being functional. The landlord is still obligated to carry out repairs in a timely manner, and the issue taking 15 months to resolve is not reasonable, given also that the toilet forms part of the property for which the resident pays rent. The landlord should pay the resident £490 in recognition of the loss of room and distress and inconvenience, which equates to around 5% of the rent for the period. The resident provides information that she spent money on a toilet suite, however it is not clear that the landlord should reimburse this.
  13. After her stage 1 complaint, the resident reported a stuck window that could not be closed or opened fully, which she says meant it was cold in winter and hot in summer. The landlord’s stage 2 response said that the inspector did not commit to repairing the window as it opened when tried in June 2022. However, their June report lacks reference to the window and the resident disputes the window was tested, so the accuracy of this is unclear. The stage 2 response’s arrangement for a further inspection was potentially a reasonable resolution to the issue, given reports before the stage 2 escalation are limited, however no information is provided about the November 2022 inspection findings and the resident says that the window was not resolved until around September 2023. The lack of evidence and progress after the November inspection is not satisfactory and the window should have been resolved sooner than 10 months. The landlord should pay the resident £50 in recognition of the delays and any distress and inconvenience, and also consider if she incurred any additional heating usage costs before the issue was resolved.
  14. The resident says issues at the property are now resolved and that she has experienced improvements in service in the past year or so. However, the multiple issues and delays that she previously experienced were not satisfactory, and this leads the Ombudsman to find maladministration in the landlord’s handling of her repairs reports after her mutual exchange.

Complaint handling

  1. The resident complained in April 2022, and the landlord provided its August stage 1 response around 4 months later, which it acknowledged. The resident requested escalation of the complaint the day after the response, and the landlord provided its November stage 2 response 3 months later, where it apologised for response delays at both stage. The landlord was positive to acknowledge response delays, but it is unclear that it fully recognised the time and trouble the resident went to, which included contacting the Ombudsman in order to obtain the stage 2 response.
  2. The landlord should take the opportunities presented by the complaints procedure to effectively resolve issues in a timely manner, and exercise care in its responses and ensure these are accurate. The stage 1 lacked detail, and missed the opportunity to be more clear about each issue the resident raised. The stage 2 response was positive to seek to address each issue, however it seems overly reliant on feedback from the repairs inspector, and lacked an evidence-based approach to the repairs. This resulted in misstatements such as smoke alarm works being complete and a repair having been raised for the rehanging of doors, which are not evident based on the information provided.
  3. It was positive for the complaint team to arrange another inspection, which took place on the day of the stage 2 response, however the resident does not appear to have been provided the outcome to this for a lengthy period. The resident chased updates for this, tried to correct inaccuracies about allegedly completed repairs, and also tried to chase outstanding repairs such as the toilet. The landlord’s complaint handling was overall not satisfactory, and the £100 it offered did not go far enough to recognise this and the time and trouble the resident to. This leads the Ombudsman to find maladministration and to order the landlord to compensate the resident £200 for the distress and inconvenience caused by its complaint handling.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was:
    1. Maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s repairs reports after her mutual exchange.
    2. Maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

  1. The landlord to, within 4 weeks:
    1. apologise to the resident in line with page 6 of our remedies guidance.
    2. pay the resident £1,075. This comprises £50 for the electric test and safety devices; £235 for the doors; £50 for the bannister; £490 for the toilet; £50 for the window; and £200 for complaint handling. The £100 previously offered and £185 door reimbursement can be deducted from this if these have been paid.
    3. liaise with the resident to obtain bills for the periods before and after the bedroom window was repaired, consider if she incurred any additional heating usage costs before the issue was resolved, and if so compensate her an amount that reflects this.
    4. liaise with the resident to establish if any of the repairs in the complaint for which it is responsible remain outstanding, and if so to provide her with a written update about its action plan for these.
  2. The landlord to, within 6 weeks, review its processes for electric tests and smoke and carbon monoxide alarm installation. As part of this it should consider how it ensures its recordkeeping for completion of these is accurate, and how it ensures these are escalated and completed in a timely manner if incomplete. It should inform the Ombudsman of the outcome to this review.
  3. The landlord to, within 6 weeks, review the June 2022 inspector report and subsequent handling in order to identify any learning. As part of this it should consider if adequate processes are in place to report and action repairs identified at inspections in a timely manner, particularly in respect to ensuring that inspection reports are clear about repairs that need to be actioned. It should inform the Ombudsman of the outcome to this review.
  4. The landlord to, within 6 weeks, take steps to ensure that it responds to future evidence requests from the Ombudsman in a timely and effective manner. As part of this it should review with its repairs service the process to ensure that all relevant repairs information, such as detailed property repair spreadsheet logs, and surveyor and contractor inspection reports, reach relevant staff in order for them to respond to the Ombudsman. It should inform the Ombudsman of the outcome to this review.
  5. The landlord to, within 8 weeks, take steps to review its processes and procedures for mutual exchanges and make an action plan to ensure that these are updated to address issues identified in the complaint. As part of this it should:
    1. review other social housing provider’s mutual exchange policies.
    2. review what mutual exchange inspections entail, how these are recorded, and how to ensure these identify any damage such as the damage to the door glass.
    3. review how it monitors and records the collation of documents before and after completion of mutual exchanges, such as electric test certificates, to ensure that it obtains appropriate documents and maintains accurate records.
    4. review how issues raised with mutual exchanges are initially investigated to ensure these are handled in a timely and effective manner.
  6. It should inform the Ombudsman of the outcome to this review.

Recommendations

  1. The landlord is recommended to:
    1. review its complaint handling to ensure that its investigations take a more evidence and resolution based approach.
    2. review its recordkeeping and the Ombudsman’s spotlight report on Knowledge and Information Management and consider any wider learning.