London Borough of Hillingdon (202324088)

A blue and grey text

Description automatically generated

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202324088

London Borough of Hillingdon

19 June 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:
1. The landlord’s management of the kitchen works.
2. The landlord’s record keeping.
3. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

Background

The resident has a secure tenancy. The property is a 3-bed house and the resident’s tenancy for the property began on 8 October 1990. The landlord said it had no vulnerabilities recorded for anybody at the property.
Kitchen renewal works were proposed and these were scheduled to start in March 2023. Upon commencement of the works, the contractor identified leaks at both the internal and external stopcocks. These leaks caused delays in the completion of the kitchen renewal works.
The resident raised a complaint about the delays in May 2023. Following a stage 2 response in September 2023, the kitchen renewal works remained outstanding. The resident brought the complaint to this Service for review due to the outstanding works and dissatisfaction with the complaint response she received.

Policies and procedures

The landlord operated a 3-stage complaint policy as follows:
1. Stage 1 – The landlord should acknowledge the complaint within 3 working days and provide its response within 10 working days. It should advise the resident in advance if it cannot meet this timeframe.
2. Stage 2 (review) – The landlord should acknowledge the complaint within 3 working days and provide its response within 20 working days. It should advise the resident in advance if it cannot meet this timeframe.
3. Stage 3 (appeal) – The landlord should acknowledge the complaint within 3 working days and provide its response within 15 working days. It should advise the resident in advance if it cannot meet this timeframe.
The landlord operates a repair policy with 4 different timescales as follows:
1. Emergency – 4 hours;
2. Urgent – 1 working day;
3. Routine – 20 working days;
4. Minor works – 90 working days.
On its website, the landlord defines emergency repairs and includes “Leaks that cannot be contained” and “Blocked or leaking drains” within that definition.

Summary of events

The landlord wrote to the resident on 15 February 2023 and explained that ahead of a kitchen renewal, it had arranged an inspection of the kitchen on 9 March 2023.
The kitchen inspection took place on 22 March 2023 and the renewal works were agreed with the resident.
There is a discrepancy around the start date, with the landlord saying it was 28 March 2023 and the resident saying it was 29 March 2023. The resident said that the contractors were late and they were offered inconsistent information by the landlord around when they would arrive to start the work. The resident claims that the landlord failed to take some of the appliances out of the kitchen as agreed when it removed the units.
A leak was identified at the stopcock by the landlord on 30 March 2023. The landlord noted that this had caused the flooring to be ‘saturated’. The resident said she was contacted by the landlord to inform her of the leak and she was directed to contact the water network. She said the water network said it would be the landlord’s responsibility. Later in the day, it was identified that both the internal and external stopcocks were broken. The landlord said that without the ability to isolate the external supply, it was unable to carry out a repair to the internal stopcock and that works would need to stop until the repairs were carried out and the kitchen was dry.
On the same day, the resident said that the electricity supply to the kitchen was not working when she returned to the property. Despite requests from this Service, the landlord did not provide any work or repair logs that make reference to this problem.
The resident said that on 31 March 2023, a plumber attended and repaired the leak to the pipe but not the stopcock and an electrician attended and ‘added a cable’ to the kitchen and agreed to return on 3 April 2023 to repair the sockets. However, the resident said that nobody turned up.
The resident said that she contacted the kitchen contractor on 5 April 2023 to chase up the work. The contractor advised that they were not aware of the electrician attending on 3 April 2023 and were awaiting an update from the landlord to advise that the leak had been repaired. The resident advised that this had been completed on 31 March 2023. The contractor advised that they could not attend again until 11 April 2023.
On 18 April 2023, the resident emailed the landlord and said she was “unhappy with the work that has been carried out to date”. The resident provided a detailed timeline of events between 8 March 2023 and 18 April 2023. The resident said she had been left “without a kitchen” and was “not kept informed”. She said she still did not know when the stopcock would be repaired, mould that was found had not been cleaned and cupboards were being fitted without old tiles having been removed. The resident asked that the landlord provide “reassurance” that her points “will be addressed as a matter of urgency”.
The resident’s email was forwarded to different addresses within the landlord, seeking updates on the works.
A works order was raised on 2 May 2023 to excavate and replace the secondary shut off as it “does not shut off”.
The landlord emailed the plumbing contractor on 3 May 2023 and asked that the plumbing works be booked in “urgently” as the kitchen works were on hold due to the leaks.
In response to questions around the resident’s email of 18 April 2023, the Resident Liaison Officer confirmed in an email, dated 5 May 2023, that works were being carried out by a contractor but had been delayed due to a burst pipe. Within that email, it said the resident’s email dated 18 April 2023 had been addressed by the contractor managing the works. However, no details were provided as to how this had been actioned.
The plumbing contractor emailed the landlord on 10 May 2023 and said that the required works had been scheduled for 23 June 2023. It asked that the target date be extended until 30 June 2023.
The resident emailed the landlord on 15 May 2023 and said she had not received a reply to her complaint of 18 April 2023. She provided a copy of her previous emails.
The landlord emailed the resident on 18 May 2023 and acknowledged receipt of her complaint. It said it would provide a response by 2 June 2023.
The landlord provided a stage 1 response to the resident’s complaint on 2 June 2023. It acknowledged that the resident’s complaint was about the time taken to complete the kitchen renewal works and lack of communication from contractors. The landlord said that leaks at the property had caused a “lengthy delay on the plaster drying out” and suggested it had caused an issue with the flooring being installed. It said that on 31 March 2023, it had attended and “completed the repair and reinstated the water supply”. It said that additional work would be undertaken on 23 June 2023 and that in future it would warn residents that “work could take longer, especially if additional works are required”. Within the response, the landlord also acknowledged that “operatives undertaking work at you property did not give you any prior notice to them not attending”. It advised that this would be fed back and operatives would be addressed directly. In addition, it said that due to the resident’s concerns around her boiler, it would visit during the week commencing 5 June 2023 to “assess the boiler”.
The landlord contacted the resident on 6 June 2023 and offered to inspect the boiler on 9 June 2023. The appointment was later scheduled for 14 June 2023.
The resident emailed the landlord on 19 June 2023 to chase an update on the kitchen renewal works, as she had not heard anything. The landlord replied the same day to advise that it had requested that she be updated as soon as possible by the correct team.
The kitchen contractor received an email from the landlord on 21 June 2023, asking it to “remove the kitchen and hack the walls back to brickwork, including removing the boiler and all fixtures”.
The plumbing contractor attended site on 26 June 2023 following the works order raised on 2 May 2023. Work was carried out to prepare the area around the leaking valve, ready for it to be replaced.
The works order raised to repair the stopcock and the leak was marked as completed on 30 June 2023.
The kitchen contractor said that they restarted work at the property on 30 June 2023. They later detailed to the landlord in an email that they had found an “old larder had been removed” and “old rags had been shoved in the cavity, where the larder meets the outside wall”. It said that this “was now rotted”. The contractor added that “there were three layers of tiles in most places”, the “larder window had been boarded and plastered over” and “air vents were boarded over internally and externally”. They explained that this meant “the brickwork was saturated where there is no airflow”.
The kitchen contractor said that after they had “stripped out” the kitchen, they had to stop work until the walls dried out.
The resident emailed the landlord on 20 July 2023 and outlined her complaint. She said that she had been without a “functioning kitchen” for 4 months. The resident requested that the landlord provide a rent refund for the time the works had been ongoing. She claimed that the property had not been “fit to live in” due to the leaks and the lack of a functioning kitchen.
The resident emailed an agent at the landlord on 25 July 2023 and asked that her email be sent to the agent that dealt with her complaint. The resident indicated that it was about her previous complaint and she had experienced an issue with the complaints email. She said that the landlord had attended in June 2023 to review the works that had been completed and following this, it had arranged to “rip everything out”. She said that the units had been left in the kitchen and had to be continuously moved around and were being damaged. The resident acknowledged that things needed to dry out but said that nobody was communicating with her to advise on the next steps in the process. She asked that she be informed as to what would be happening next and asked when the kitchen works would be completed.
Following the resident’s email, the landlord chased the kitchen contractor for an update and they replied on the same day. It advised that damp had been a factor causing delays and previously completed refurbishment works carried out by the resident had also contributed to them. It said it was due to start further works the next day, with it completing its works to the kitchen by the end of the following week.
The contractor emailed the landlord on 1 August 2023 and said it had to stop work due to plaster not being dry. It advised that the stopcock repair had not been completed, as the leak was ongoing.
The resident emailed again on 3 August 2023 to chase a response to her previous complaint email dated 20 July 2023. The resident asked for a copy of the formal complaint procedure and said that the kitchen works remained incomplete and there had been further leaks.
The kitchen contractor emailed the landlord on 4 August 2023 and said they had repaired a stopcock the day before. They indicated that the resident’s son had complained about water on the kitchen floor and the contractor’s behaviour.
On 4 August 2023, further notes were added to the works order from 2 May 2023. This was following contact from the kitchen contractor. The note said that the internal stopcock was leaking and it was unable to shut off the water, as the external stopcock was not working. The notes indicate that further digging works were required and were currently “booked in for a couple of weeks’ time” but “will look to bring it forward asap” due to this preventing the kitchen works being completed.
The contractor emailed the landlord on 6 August 2023 and advised that the resident’s son had asked that it stop work at the property due to the ongoing leak. The contractor said they could not isolate the water supply and indicated that previous work by the plumber had not been completed. The contractor said they had latexed the floor but needed the leak to be repaired before they could complete the kitchen works, which they said were “almost complete”. The landlord forwarded the email to its “repairs contractors” and asked that the leak be addressed as soon as possible.
The contractor attended site on 11 August 2023 and completed the work to replace the external stopcock.
The plumbing contractor informed the landlord by email on 14 August 2023 that the outstanding works had been completed.
The landlord requested on 30 August 2023 that the kitchen contractor arrange to restart works at the property.
On 5 September 2023, the kitchen contractor agreed to restart works on 11 September 2023.
The resident’s daughter emailed the landlord on 11 September 2023 and said that it had not responded to the resident’s complaint from 3 August 2023.
The kitchen contractor attended the property on 11 September 2023. During that day, the resident’s son questioned the contractor as to why this had gone ahead without the landlord attending. He asked that the work be stopped until this had been cleared up. The contractor emailed the landlord and said that the work had been cancelled and the operatives reallocated.
The resident’s son emailed the landlord on the same day and expressed concern that the landlord failed to attend that day, as had been previously agreed in August 2023.
The landlord replied on 12 September 2023 and said the resident’s son had “jumped the gun” in refusing the contractor access. It said it had intended to attend site on 12 September 2023. The landlord said that the next date that the kitchen contractor could attend would be 21 September 2023 and asked if this was acceptable. The resident’s son replied that day and advised that he had not been made aware of the landlord’s intention to attend on 12 September 2023 and was under the assumption it would have attended on the “morning of the recommencement, as agreed with me verbally”. He questioned the lack of communication throughout the process, along with the quality of the previous work it completed.
The landlord emailed the resident on 12 September 2023 and acknowledged her stage 2 complaint and said that a response should be issued within the following 10 working days.
The resident’s son emailed the landlord on 14 September 2023 and said he had not had a response to his previous email and he was unaware of what would be happening next.
The landlord provided a stage 2 response on 5 October 2023. It acknowledged that the resident’s complaint was about the outstanding kitchen renewal works and her request for a rent refund for the period the works were ongoing. The landlord agreed that there had been significant delays and said these were due to mains water leaks and “multiple access issues”. The landlord said it had been liaising with the resident’s son and had arranged for works to recommence on 9 October 2023.
Works were completed later in October 2023.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s management of the kitchen renewal works

It is clear that the leaks identified both internally and externally caused significant periods of delay in completing the kitchen renewal works. It is understandable that those works could not be completed while there were ongoing leaks at the property, as they caused damp and other associated problems.
The first report of a leak was on 30 March 2023. Further investigation of the leak that day found that there was an issue with both the internal and external stopcocks. Given that this meant that the water supply could not be isolated at the property and in line with its own repair policy, the landlord should have considered this an emergency repair. Its repair policy states that an emergency repair should be completed within 4 hours. However, it took a total of 135 days to fully repair the stopcocks at the property. This is a service failing as the landlord failed to meet its policy timeframe which then had a significant effect on the time taken to complete the kitchen renewal works.
It is understandable that, in some cases, further parts or works are required in order to complete a repair. However, the first record of a works order being raised to repair the stopcock was not until 2 May 2023, over a month after the problem was identified. Although the landlord chased this the next day and requested that it be dealt with “urgently”, the first visit to the property to carry out the repair by the contractor was not until 23 June 2023, over 6 weeks later. The landlord was aware of this delay but chose to allow it, rather than looking for alternative means by which to have the repair completed sooner. This is a service failing that demonstrates a lack of urgency on the part of the landlord as it failed to take into account the resident’s position during this time. The resident had been left in the difficult position of having to live without a fully functioning kitchen for around 10 weeks, prior to the plumbing contractor attending to carry out the required repair.
Despite the works order for the leak repair being marked as completed on 30 June 2023, the stopcocks were not repaired. This was not identified until 1 August 2023, over a month later. During this time, the kitchen contractor had been carrying out further works but at no point was it checked that the cause of the previous delays had been resolved. Given those previous delays, it would have been reasonable for the landlord to have ensured that the stopcocks had been repaired, prior to it restarting the kitchen works. The continued presence of the leaks meant that plaster not drying continued to be an issue and caused further delays in the completion of the kitchen renewal.
Had the landlord provided adequate oversight of the stopcock repairs and the kitchen renewal works that followed, these additional delays could have been avoided or significantly reduced. This is evident in that the stopcock repair was completed within 2 weeks of it being reported again on 1 August 2023. Taking into account this timeframe, had the landlord provided the same level of service when the leak was first reported, the kitchen contractor could have been in a position to begin the renewal works in April 2023. This would allowed the works to be completed quicker, as it would have removed the potential for delays in the plaster drying. This overall lack of oversight is a service failing by the landlord which caused unnecessary delays in both the repair of the stopcocks and the kitchen renewal works. This added to the resident’s distress and the inconvenience around her having limited access to a functioning kitchen.
It is evident that the kitchen contractor initially completed works that did not meet the landlord’s standards. This was identified in June 2023 by the landlord, following contact from the resident, which led to its request that the units be removed and reinstalled. This demonstrates a further lack of oversight of those works, as the landlord allowed them to go ahead, despite knowing of the issues that the leaks and associated damp were causing.
It is clear that the resident informed the landlord of her view that there was not a functional kitchen throughout her complaint. The landlord has not provided, despite the Ombudsman’s requests, any evidence to show that the kitchen was functional throughout the period that the works were undertaken. Within its response to those requests, it said “please see photo’s with microwave in situ”. This suggests that the landlord considered the presence of a microwave to be evidence that there was “reasonable functionality or use of the kitchen” during the works. It is the view of the Ombudsman that this is not evidence of a functional kitchen.
Despite our requests, the landlord failed to provide any detailed worklogs, inspection reports or general notes around the progression of the kitchen renewal works. It did provide an email from the contractor, which provided some notes around the history of the works. However, in most cases they were not dated and these could not be considered to provide any details around the condition of the kitchen. Given the ongoing leaks, the periods in which no work was undertaken and the landlord identifying that the initial works had to be restarted, it is reasonable to suppose that the kitchen was not fully functional during the period the works were undertaken and it is understandable that the resident reported this accordingly.
The landlord indicated that, along with the leaks, access issues contributed to the delays in completing the kitchen renewal works. It is evident from the information provided that the disputes around access only began following the complaints in July 2023. Given the length of time that it had taken, it is understandable that the resident and her son became frustrated by the ongoing delays. It is clear from the correspondence between both parties that a lack of communication around the works had led to a more defined plan of works being sought by the resident and her son. It is understandable, therefore, that there was a reluctance by the resident to allow works to be carried out while they had no assurances around what the landlord’s schedule of works would be.
Ultimately, the landlord failed to provide adequate oversight of the repairs linked to the leaks, along with the completion and quality of the kitchen renewal works. Had it done so, the delays would have been significantly reduced. It is clear that the landlord failed to keep the resident informed of its plans to resolve the leak and complete the wider kitchen works, leading to a breakdown in its relationship with her during this period. This lack of communication later led to further delays due to access issues, as the resident wanted some reassurance around the extent and timeframe of the works to be completed. These combined service failings mean the Ombudsman has made a finding of maladministration.

The landlord’s record keeping

A landlord should have systems in place to maintain accurate records. These records should allow it to provide an accurate timeline of actions and events when required. Failure to keep adequate records indicates that the landlord’s processes are not operating effectively. A landlord’s staff should be aware of the record management policy and procedures and adhere to these.
Throughout this investigation, the Ombudsman’s work has been hampered by either a lack of evidence or the provision of vague and poor quality records by the landlord. The repair records provided by the landlord were insufficient, as these did not provide dated logs showing when the contractors attended site and which works were undertaken throughout the kitchen renewal process. The landlord failed to provide any inspection reports for the kitchen works, despite the quality of work being deemed insufficient in June 2023, causing the works to be restarted.
Although the kitchen renewal works were carried out by a contractor, the landlord should still maintain detailed records of attendance and works at the property.
The lack of records held by the landlord for the works carried out by the contractor meant that it did not have a clear understanding of the position of the ongoing works. This also meant that the landlord always had to liaise with the contractor before it could establish the current status of those works. This meant it was not able to actively monitor the works, preventing it from identifying overdue works or periods of inactivity.
It is the view of the Ombudsman that the landlord’s lack of records of the planned works, and its lack of visibility of them, contributed significantly to the delays. Given that this failing by the landlord had a detrimental effect on the resident’s experience, the Ombudsman has made a finding of maladministration in regard to the landlord’s record keeping.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint

The resident first raised a complaint on 18 April 2023 as she said in her email that she was “unhappy with the work that has been carried out”. However, despite this email showing an expression of dissatisfaction, it was not acknowledged as a complaint. Instead, the email was forwarded to different staff within the landlord, without a recorded response to the resident, who later indicated in her email of 15 May 2023 that she had not received any response to it. This is a service failing on the part of the landlord as its failure to identify the email as a complaint and log it as such caused a delay in the management of that complaint. This could only have added to the resident’s frustration, given that her complaint was about delays by the landlord.
The landlord’s stage 1 response acknowledged the delays in the kitchen renewal works and said that these were due to the leaks. However, it did not acknowledge the significant delay in it carrying out the required works to repair the stopcocks. It failed to address the resident’s concerns around the condition and functionality of the kitchen and made no mention of her request for a rent refund. Therefore, it could not be considered that the landlord fully addressed the resident’s complaint. This is a further failing on the part of the landlord, which demonstrates a lack of empathy towards the resident’s situation. This inevitably will have added to the resident feeling that the landlord had ignored her concerns.
There was a delay in the resident’s complaint being escalated to stage 2 but this seems to have been caused by the resident sending her complaint to an incorrect email address. It is evident that the landlord had provided an email address that the resident could use to escalate her complaint within its stage 1 response. An incorrect address was initially used instead.
However, it is clear that the resident emailed the landlord on 25 July 2023 and made it aware that her escalation request had not been responded to. Despite this being sent to somebody in a different department at the landlord, it would have been reasonable for this to have been highlighted to the complaints team for it to investigate further with the resident. This is a another service failing on the part of the landlord, as its agents should be able to identify a complaint and look to liaise with the complaints department to ensure these are addressed in the correct manner.
The stage 2 response provided by the landlord offered a brief explanation on the reasons for the delays as being “mains water leaks and multiple access issues”. However, it did not acknowledge its own failings and detail how it could have prevented those delays. Further to this, it failed to acknowledge the resident’s claim for a rent refund or her concerns around the lack of a fully functioning kitchen and the inconvenience she experienced during the kitchen renewal works. In line with the Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles, the landlord should have ensured a full understanding of the complaint, addressed each of the points raised by the resident and identified any of its service failings. These particular failings demonstrate a lack of a understanding of the resident’s complaint and associated requests, which were clear from her initial and escalated complaints.
Ultimately, the landlord failed to identify the initial complaint from the resident in April 2023 and did not provide adequate responses to it across both stages. The landlord highlighted what it considered to be the reason for delays but failed to acknowledge its own failings that had contributed to those delays. Even after reviewing the complaint, the landlord failed to take sufficient steps to ensure the work was completed in a reasonable timeframe, leaving the resident in the same position throughout. These combined service failings mean the Ombudsman has made a finding of maladministration.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s management of the kitchen renewal works.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s record keeping.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

Reasons

The landlord failed to undertake the kitchen renewal works in a reasonable timeframe. Although there were leaks that contributed to those delays, the landlord did not address the leaks in line with its own repair policy, taking over 4 months to have them repaired and therefore allow works to the kitchen to be restarted. Had it avoided these failings, the kitchen renewal works could have been completed much sooner.
The landlord failed to maintain detailed records of the works undertaken by its contractor. This likely contributed to there being long periods during which no work was carried out and the resident had to chase completion of the kitchen renewal works.
The landlord failed to identify the initial complaint despite it being clearly laid out as such. It then failed to obtain a full understanding of that complaint and did not acknowledge or address several of the key elements of the complaint.

Orders

The landlord is ordered to provide a written apology to the resident for the overall delays in the kitchen renewal works. This should be provided within 28 days of the date of this report.
The landlord is ordered to make a payment of £750 to the resident in recognition of the distress and inconvenience caused by its management of the kitchen renewal works. This should be paid directly to the resident within 28 days of the date of this report.
The landlord is ordered to make a payment of £200 to the resident in recognition of the distress and inconvenience caused by its handling of her complaint. This should be paid directly to the resident within 28 days of the date of this report.
In accordance with paragraph 54(g) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord is ordered to carry out a management review of its practices in relation to knowledge and information management, planned works and complaint handling, particularly with regard to communication with tenants and monitoring of contractors. This must be carried out within 12 weeks, consider the failings identified in this report and include (but not be limited to):
1. A review of its record-keeping practices against the recommendations made in the Ombudsman’s Spotlight Report on Knowledge and Information Management. It should consider, if has not done so already, implementing a knowledge and information management strategy to ensure appropriate recording of responsive repairs reports, appointments and works completed (including where repairs have been appointed to a contractor).
2. A review of its practices in relation to planned works involving third-party contractors, including consideration of improving its approach to communications with residents during planned works.
3. Ensuring that all relevant staff are able to identify a complaint and staff have adequate training in addressing complaints in line with the Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles.
The landlord should provide evidence of this review, and related actions, to this Service and explain how it will embed any changes to improve future service delivery.