Tower Hamlets Homes (202310957)

A blue and grey text

Description automatically generated

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202310957

Tower Hamlets Homes

16 August 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

The complaint is about the landlord’s:
1. Response to the resident’s concerns about the condition of the walls when the property was let.
2. Handling of repairs to accommodate a washing machine in the kitchen.
This report also looks at the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

Background

The resident lives in a 2-bed property in a housing block that is managed by an arm’s length housing association on behalf of a local authority landlord. The property was let under a secure tenancy agreement in December 2022. The landlord does not record any vulnerabilities for the resident.
The resident submitted a stage 1 complaint to the landlord on 23 January 2023 in which she said:
1. The property the landlord had offered her was substandard and that she had spent a lot of money to make the property a home. She also said that the space for the washing machine should have been checked before she was given keys to the property as it was too small, and it was unsafe for the washing machine to be in the middle of the kitchen.
2. She had not been contacted by a contractor since it had told her it would contact her with a repair appointment concerning making space for the washing machine. Old flooring tiles would show, and her new flooring would be damaged when the contractor carried out the work.
3. She would like compensation for the money she had spent decorating the property and for any damage that might be caused when space was made for a washing machine.
The landlord acknowledged the complaint on 24 January 2023. It sent a stage 1 response to the resident on 6 February 2023 in which it said:
1. The service the resident had received had fallen below its normal standards.
2. It had attended the property and had noted that a base unit was too small to house a washing machine and that it would adjust the space.
3. It apologised for any inconvenience the matter had caused and it offered her £30 as compensation for the time, trouble, and inconvenience for its delay in resolving the matter.
The resident sent a stage 2 escalation request to the landlord on 9 May 2023 in which she:
1. Restated that the property was not in a lettable standard when it had been given to her and that she had been required to strip the wall paper and replaster the property.
2. Said that she felt that she had been treated unfairly and that the landlord had failed to provide an adequate service in a timely manner.
3. Summarised the repairs that had been completed to make room in the kitchen for her washing machine and said that no viable solutions had been achieved.
4. Said that she had been given contradictory advice about whether new kitchen units would be installed and that it had felt like contractors had been experimenting in her home.
5. Advised that she had not received any compensation for the laundry costs she had incurred since moving in and that the matter had made her feel depressed and anxious.
The landlord acknowledged the stage 2 complaint on 17 May 2023, and it sent its stage 2 response to the resident on 22 May 2023. The landlord said its contractor had attended the property and had completed repairs to achieve the required space to accommodate a washing machine. It further said that it would return to the property to decorate the area. It apologised for the inconvenience, time, and trouble the matter had caused and it increased its offer of compensation to £60. The landlord said its response to the complaint was final, and that she could access this Service if she remained dissatisfied.
On 19 July 2023 the resident contacted the Service in which she reported that she had still been without a washing machine.
This Service wrote to the resident on 21 February 2024 to acknowledge her request for us to investigate the complaint.

Assessment and findings

Scope of the investigation.

In the resident’s complaints she said that she had been having issues with her wrist since she had moved into the property. In an email the resident sent to this Service on 26 June 2023 she said that the matter had caused her undue stress and had affected her mental health and wellbeing. This Service is unable to look into and make a decision about the cause of, or liability for, any impact on health and wellbeing. Nonetheless, consideration has been given to the general distress and inconvenience which the situation may have caused the resident.

Response to the resident’s concerns about the condition of the walls when the property was let.

The landlord failed to respond to the resident’s complaint about the condition of the property, including that of the walls when it was let, in its complaint responses. This is addressed in the assessment of the landlord’s complaint handling. However, for completeness we have considered the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about the walls.
The landlord completed repairs in the property prior to letting it to the resident in December 2022. This was in keeping with the landlord’s lettable standards policy which says it will try to carry out any necessary repairs before a resident moves in. Its empty property (‘void’) repair team subsequently completed a post-inspection handover at the property on 14 November 2022. It was appropriate for staff that were suitably qualified to repair and assess the condition of void works to complete a handover of the property. The lettable standards policy says that the ceilings and walls will be in a good condition and free from any structural defects but that there might be minor cracks which are minor works that residents may have to do. The handover certificate recorded no snagging or extra works were required to the walls or ceilings in the property.
It is evident that the resident stripped the wallpaper and completed plasterwork repairs when she moved into the property. The landlord’s responsive repairs policy says residents are responsible for internal decorations, including filling small surface cracks. However, it also says that the landlord is responsible for repairing inside walls and that it will complete routine repairs, which includes repairs to plasterwork, within 20 working days . However there is no evidence that the resident had reported plasterwork repairs to the landlord when it had been exposed, prior to arranging the replastering herself.
It is recognised that completing plaster repairs would have caused some inconvenience to the resident when she decorated the property. However, the tenancy agreement sets out that internal decoration works are not the landlord’s responsibility. Its lettable standards policy indicates that there was no further obligation for the landlord to remove wallpaper in a property prior to letting if the walls were considered to be in a good condition. The landlord was not provided with the opportunity to assess and put right any damage to the plasterwork for which it may have been responsible. Therefore, taking all matters into account this Service finds no maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about the condition of the walls when the property was let.

Handling of repairs to accommodate a washing machine in the kitchen.

It is not clear when the resident told the landlord that her washing machine did not fit in the kitchen. However the landlord raised an enquiry for it to investigate the matter on 13 January 2023. The landlord subsequently inspected the property 10 working days later in keeping with its repairs policy which says it will complete routine repairs (which include repairing kitchen units and repairs to plasterwork) within 20 working days. However, the landlord arranged for its voids team to re-inspect the property on 2 February 2023 and it returned once more to complete a repair on 8 February 2023. This caused unnecessary time and trouble to the resident in providing access to the property on 3 occasions for repairs to be completed.
It is noted that the lettable standards policy says that depending on the kitchen layout, or where there is room, there may be space for a washing machine with hot and cold-water feeds. Therefore there was no obligation on the landlord to provide space for the washing machine prior to the resident moving in. However, having agreed to carry out the work to accommodate the washing machine it was unreasonable for it not to have resolved the matter within its 20 working day repair policy timescale.
On 28 February 2023 the resident emailed the landlord to say that its contractor had thought it had provided sufficient space to accommodate the washing machine. However she explained that the repair had been unsuccessful. It was unreasonable for the landlord not to have completed the repair it had agreed to complete to an acceptable standard. The landlord’s failing caused further inconvenience to the resident.
The landlord did not respond to the resident’s email of 28 February 2023 therefore causing her to chase it for a response a month later, on 25 March 2023. This was unreasonable. It would have been appropriate for the landlord to have replied to the resident’s enquiry so as to prevent the further time and trouble its failure caused her. Furthermore it would have been reasonable for it to acknowledge the inconvenience its delays had caused such as the resident’s use of a launderette and for it to have provided a timescale within which it would complete the remedial work.
The landlord’s repairs supervisor spoke to the resident on 31 March 2023 and committed to raise a repair when he returned to the office. However, there is no evidence that he did so. No further communication was provided to the resident, and she was once again required to chase the landlord on 24 April 2023 to remind it of its commitment to raise the works orders. As previously advised the landlord’s failure to respond to the resident within reasonable timescales and with advice about what it would to do remedy the matter was unreasonable. Furthermore its failure to raise the repairs it had promised caused further distress to the resident and a loss of confidence in the landlord.
On 15 May 2023 the landlord sent an internal email to say that it had not raised any works orders because the matter had been handled by its voids team. While it was within the landlord’s remit to decide how it wished to respond to the repairs, it was unreasonable for the landlord not to have ensured the repairs progressed in keeping with its commitments.
The resident escalated her complaint on 9 May 2023 and the landlord then scheduled repair appointments on 18 and 26 May 2023. While this was a welcome step, it was unreasonable for the landlord only to have progressed the repair it had committed to resolve once the resident had been put to the inconvenience of having to make a formal complaint.
The landlord reviewed its handling of the matter in its final response in which it apologised and offered a compensation award of £60 for its delay in handling the repair. When there are acknowledged failings by a landlord, as is the case here, the Ombudsman will consider whether the redress offered by the landlord had put things right and resolved the resident’s complaint satisfactorily in the circumstances. In considering this the Ombudsman takes into account whether the landlord’s offer of redress (an apology, its acknowledgement of service failure, and compensation) was in line with the Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles; be fair, put things right and learn from outcomes.
The landlord acted fairly by recognising its failings and offering an award of compensation to the resident. This was in keeping with its compensation guidance which says awards would be considered when a service failure has led to the resident suffering demonstrable distress or inconvenience. However, it took the landlord 66 working days more than its 20-working day repair timescale to complete the repair which was an inappropriate amount of time. Furthermore the level of engagement the resident was required to undertake to pursue the repair was unreasonable under the circumstances. The landlord’s compensation offer of £60 was therefore not proportionate to the detriment that had been caused to the resident. Consequently and taking all matters into account this Service finds maladministration in the landlord’s handling of repairs to accommodate a washing machine in the kitchen.
This Service considers that an increased award of compensation is due in keeping with our remedies guidance which suggests a range of awards where maladministration is found but there was no permanent impact on the resident. An additional award of £200 is therefore ordered below in recognition that the landlord has acknowledged its repair handling failings and made some attempt to put things right, but its offer was not proportionate to the impact on the resident of the failings this investigation has identified.
The resident contacted this Service on 19 July 2023 after the landlord had issued its final response in which she said she had still been left without a washing machine for over 7 months. We have been unable to clarify the current situation and have made an order below. Handling of the resident’s complaint.

Handling of the resident’s complaint.

The landlord did not address the resident’s concerns about the condition of the walls when the property was let in keeping with paragraph 5.6 of the Housing Ombudsman Complaint Handling Code (the ‘Code’) which says landlords must address all points raised in the complaint. This was inappropriate given the resident raised the matter in both of her complaints and had specifically requested a compensation payment. The landlord’s failure to fully address the complaint resulted in the resident incurring time and trouble in pursuing a response via this Service.
Although the landlord apologised and acknowledged some failings it did not specifically say if it had upheld the stage 1 and stage 2 complaints in accordance with paragraphs 5.8 and 5.16 of the code which says that landlords must confirm the decision on the complaint, and any reasons for the decisions made.
This Service considers that an award of compensation is due in keeping with our remedies guidance and has therefore ordered an award of £100 to be paid to the resident below. This amount is in keeping with our remedies guidance for situations where there was a failure which adversely affected the resident, and the landlord has failed to acknowledge its failings and/or has made no attempt to put things right. .

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme there was:
1. No maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about the condition of the walls when the property was let.
2. Maladministration in respect of the landlord’s handling of:
  1. Repairs to accommodate a washing machine in the kitchen.
  2. The resident’s complaint.

Orders and recommendations

Within 4 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord is ordered to:
1. Pay the resident the £60 compensation offered in the stage 2 response if it has not already done so.
2. Pay the resident an additional £300 in compensation made up as follows:
  1. £200 for time, trouble, and inconvenience associated with the completion of repairs to accommodate a washing machine in the kitchen.
  2. £100 for time and trouble caused to the resident related to the landlord’s complaint handling failures.
3. Contact the resident to clarify if any further work is needed to the space around the washing machine.
The compensation is to be paid direct to the resident and not offset against any money that the resident may owe the landlord.