London Borough of Redbridge (202304125)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202304125

London Borough of Redbridge

14 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 of cigarette smoke.
2. Response to the resident’s report of not having hot water.
3. Handling of bathroom and window repairs following a mutual exchange and associated contractor appointments.
4. Complaint handling including knowledge and information management.

Background and summary of events

Background

The resident has a secure tenancy with the landlord (which is a Local Authority) at the property since December 2022. The property is a 1st floor studio flat. The neighbour of the fat below the resident is also a neighbour of the landlord. The landlord has the following vulnerabilities recorded for the resident; diabetes, borderline personality disorder, anxiety and depression. He has two children aged 2 and 5. The resident moved into the property by way of mutual exchange on 19 December 2022.
Landlords are required to look at the condition of properties using a risk assessment approach called the Housing Health and Safety Rating System (HHSRS). HHSRS does not set out any minimum standards, but it is concerned with avoiding, or minimising potential hazards. Having no hot water for personal sanitation and food preparation is a potential hazard that can fall within the scope of the HHSRS. Landlords should be aware of their obligations under the HHSRS, and they are expected to carry out additional monitoring of a property where potential hazards are identified.
The Right to Repair scheme covers certain repairs, known as ‘qualifying repairs’, which cost less than £250 to carry out. This include a lack of hot water and a toilet that will not flush. Repairs should be carried out within 1 working day if there is no hot water between 31 October – 1 May.
The landlord’s repairs handbook states as follows:
1. Repairs will be responded to as follows:
  1. Out of hours emergency – such repairs are usually attended to and made safe within 2 hours. This could be a full repair or a repair to make the property safe.
  2. Emergency – such repairs are usually attended to within 2 hours and completed within 24 hours. Repairs are an emergency if:

1) They could cause serious damage to the property.

2) There is a serious health and safety risk to residents or members of the public.

3) There is a risk of death or injury to residents or members of the public.

Urgent – such repairs are usually done within 5 working days.
Routine – such repairs are usually done within 28 calendar days.

For vulnerable residents it will:
1. Make sure repairs staff know how to support vulnerable people.
2. Keep its records up to date.
3. Keep track of repairs to see if a resident needs more support.
It is responsible for the following repairs:
1. Toilet flushing system.
2. External window frames and windowsills.
3. Window ironmongery.
4. Door entry systems.

The landlord’s compensation guidelines state as follows:
1. In calculating compensation, it should consider if the resident has incurred an additional expense. In these cases the level of compensation should reflect the expense incurred by the resident.
2. Time and trouble in pursuing a complaint should be in the range of £10 – £50.
The landlord’s complaints policy states as follows:
1. It will look to resolve the matter quickly and without the need for escalation to the formal complaints process.
2. At stage 1 of its formal complaints process, it will acknowledge the complaint within 2 working days and respond within 10 working days. At stage 2 it will respond within 20 working days.

Summary of events

On 13 October 2022 a mutual exchange survey was carried out by the landlord at the property. It noted as follows:
1. The windows at the rear of the building did not have locks.
2. The property was electric only with panel wall heaters and a hot water cylinder.
3. Walls were painted and were in good condition.
4. The kitchen was in a good condition.
5. The bathroom was in a satisfactory working order.
6. The bathroom taps of the hand basin needed overhauling as they dripped.
7. The toilet push flush button needed renewing as it did not always flush when pressed.
8. The bathroom door needed renewing by the neighbour (it did not state whether this was the previous neighbour) as it had a hole through it.
9. It was happy for the exchange to take place on the proviso that the electrical test and certificate had been carried out.
On 19 December 2022 the resident moved into the property by way of a mutual exchange. It is not clear if the resident had viewed the property prior to moving in. That same day he advised the landlord of the following issues with the property:
1. The toilet did not flush.
2. There was no hot water.
3. The intercom did not work.
4. The property required modernising and extensive decoration.
5. He could smell cigarette smoke from the flat below which was harmful as he had asthma and he was finding it hard to breathe.
The landlord responded that same day (19 December 2022) and stated that the neighbour below was not “committing an offence” for smoking in their home. It could send them a letter. The resident (that same day) asked the landlord not to send a letter but asked it to block any holes in the downstairs property to stop smoke travelling to his property through the floor and walls. The landlord advised (the same day) that it was unable to block holes because a neighbour was smoking in their home.
The following day (20 December 2022) the resident advised the landlord that he had spoken to the neighbour below and the smell of cigarettes had been overpowering. He stated that the smoking had continued and he could not breathe and was having to use his asthma inhaler a lot. He advised that mentally he could feel himself deteriorating. He asked the landlord to write to the neighbour with the view to an abatement notice.
On 28 December 2022 the resident advised the landlord as follows:
1. He had no hot water as the electric shower and electric immersion heater had broken.
2. The toilet was broken and the cistern part was not available to order.
3. A contractor had recommended (it is not clear when) converting to mains and installing a small unvented cylinder.
4. There was a leak from the electric shower pipe and “shoddy” pipework.
5. The sink and bath were stained/damaged.
6. The bathroom was cold and damp.
7. He requested for a new bathroom suite and toilet.
8. He asked for his property to be inspected.
The resident contacted the adult social services team on 29 December 2022 in respect of the cigarette smell. They advised him that the issue was for the landlord however they would discuss his concerns with the neighbour below.
On 5 January 2023 the resident submitted a complaint to the landlord and stated as follows:
1. The boiler had been approved but to get to that stage had been “atrocious” with far too much involvement from him and a lack of communication.
2. He asked for a surveyor to approve the bathroom refit quickly and inspect the neighbour’s property below.
3. The matters were “very stressful” and his health was suffering.
The resident further emailed the landlord that day and asked to know how many reports of the cigarette smell the landlord had received and that he should have been made aware prior to exchanging. He stated that an air barrier should be created between the neighbour’s ceiling and his floor and painted with a waterproof airtight paint. He stated that the neighbour below was “clearly not or mentally capable of reporting the repairs”.
On 6 January 2023 the resident provided a letter from his GP to the landlord. The GP stated as follows:
1. The resident was experiencing headaches, coughing, eyes watering and what felt like palpitations.
2. The resident felt that his asthma was being exacerbated by the downstairs neighbour who was a chain smoker.
3. The smoke and the contact with the landlord was affecting his mental health and anxiety. It was also affecting his depression and his anger and he was finding his living conditions unmanageable.
The landlord contacted the resident that same day (6 January 2023). It apologised for the delays and said that it had logged his complaint. It advised that it had raised jobs for the toilet push button to be replaced and the leaking pipework. It had raised an inspection for a surveyor to inspect the remaining issues. The resident advised that the issues were urgent and the repairs should coincide with the boiler installation. He stated he had complained about the contractor as follows:
1. He had to continuously re-explain the problem and the contractor had addressed the wrong problems. It had not listened properly of fully comprehended the problems.
2. There was ambiguity regarding parts on order and it had not ordered the electric shower.
3. Jobs had been inappropriately closed, not linked with each other and not recorded correctly. There were no notes in the system.
4. There had been 2 instances of no call backs from a supervisor and it attending late. He had been passed between the contractor and the landlord.
5. The property had passed the inspection prior to the mutual exchange when it should have failed.
6. He had no toilet or shower because of the contractor’s failures for 3 weeks.
7. He requested an apology and compensation.
The landlord advised that same day that it had classed the inspection as a high importance visit, so it should be carried out the following week. It stated that the contractor did not issue compensation, but it would see how the matters could be resolved.
The landlord spoke to the resident on 9 January 2023 about his concerns. It advised him that the neighbour below was elderly and vulnerable and had lived in the property for over 23 years without any complaints of cigarette smoke from others. It had also spoken to neighbours who had not reported any issues with the neighbour. It advised that it could not take enforcement action against the neighbour as they had not breached their tenancy agreement. It stated it would make further attempts to speak to the neighbour. The landlord did so the following day (10 January 2023) and asked the neighbour to open the windows when smoking.
On 13 January 2023 the resident chased a response to his complaint. He also added additional aspects of compliant as follows:
1. He had not had a properly flushing toilet, hot water or shower since 19 December 2022. A plumber had attended without an appointment on 11 January 2023. The part required had been unavailable and the plumber had agreed the whole cistern would need to be replaced. On 13 January 2023 he had been advised of another plumber appointment despite one having already attended. There had been 2 occasions when he had waited in unnecessarily for a plumber.
2. The surveyor had been booked for 24 January. He had asked the landlord to bring this forward which it did but only to 19 January 2023. This did not show a sense of urgency.
3. Window hinges had been ordered on 5 January 2023 but had not been fitted.
4. A window specialist had advised the contractor that due to it being a “special window” the whole thing needed to be replaced as the mechanism was broken.
On 17 January 2023 the resident added further matters to his complaint as follows:
1. The intercom had been reported for repair in December 2022. The engineer had failed to attend his property to inspect his handset which did not work. A new appointment had been booked for 12 January 2023 but the contractor did not have a new handset with them. They had promised to return but had not done so. An appointment had been arranged for 18 January 2023 which meant more waiting at home.
2. The contractor had failed to keep him informed about the status of the 2 window jobs. He stated the requirement for a new window was not on the contractor’s system. The hinges for the front windows had arrived but no one had called him to book an appointment. The contractor could not attend until 24 January 2023 which was another day he would have to wait in.
3. He had not had the full use of the property and had spent time waiting for contractors or inspections (he stated this was11 appointments).
On 17 January 2023 the landlord acknowledged the complaint of 5 January 2023. It advised it would respond by 19 January 2023.
On 23 January 2023 the resident emailed the Local Authority’s Housing Options team and stated that he had an emergency situation and could not stay in his property due to the effects on his health from smoke inhalation. The landlord (which had been copied in) contacted the resident that day and advised that it had written to the neighbour in January 2023. The resident responded that there were “massive holes” in the flat below which were allowing the smoke to enter his flat. The landlord stated it would arrange for a surveyor to inspect the property below.
On 24 January 2023 the resident contacted the landlord and stated as follows:
1. The landlord was not taking him seriously and it was an emergency situation. He asked to be moved to a hotel until the smoke was resolved. The smoke was giving him “splitting headaches and blurred vision” and he could not breathe.
2. He had no hot water or a flushing toilet since 19 December 2022.
3. A new boiler was being installed that day but he had had to wait in for almost 15 appointments at his expense. He had had no responses to emails.
4. A surveyor had attended the previous weeks in respect of the bathroom.
The landlord contacted the resident on 25 January 2023 and advised that the advice it had given him about the neighbour smoking not being a breach of tenancy had been correct. It advised there was no enforcement action it could take. It noted that it was surprised that there was smoke ingress from the flat below, however it had requested a surveyor attend to clarify if there were any defects with the neighbour’s property.
The resident responded that same day and asked for the property below to be inspected the following day. He provided the landlord with a link to a Local Authority support scheme for improvement grants. He requested that the landlord access this grant for the neighbour to improve the condition of the property. He stated that the neighbour was a fire risk to himself and others. He advised that the smell could pass through concrete which was porous and that the concrete should be sealed and cracks filled.
On 30 January 2023 the resident advised the landlord that the following were outstanding:
1. The front windows. The contractor had advised that it needed a new frame. He had heard nothing further.
2. The surveyor had attended on 19 January to look at the issues including for the bathroom refurbishment. He had heard nothing since.
3. The contractor had sent him another plumber appointment to repair the toilet flush when it had been determined that a new cistern was required.
On 31 January 2023 the resident contacted the landlord and stated that his mental and physical health had deteriorated substantially due to lack of action, communication and urgency from the landlord. He stated his eyes were stinging, his head was throbbing and his heart was racing.
The following day (1 February 2023) the landlord advised the resident as follows:
1. It had chased the surveyor’s report.
2. Its contractor had not been aware that the toilet works were not complete.
3. A new job has been raised for a quote for new windows and frames.
4. It had raised these works as urgent.
That same day (1 February 2023) the landlord sent a stage 1 response to the resident (the emailed letter was dated 27 January 2023). It stated as follows:
1. There was no order on the contractor’s system in respect of the “noisy shower”. It had now raised a job for a replacement shower. When the shower was replaced, pipework would be renewed.
2. The contractor had an order on its system to complete works by 3 February 2023 in respect of the continuous leak.
3. A new order on the contractor’s system for a window was due 6 February 2023.
4. It apologised for the delays and for not meeting his expectations and for any inconvenience caused by its lack of communication.
5. In regard to the neighbour below, it advised the resident to contact his housing officer who would provide information on how to proceed with the complaint further.
That same day (1 February 2023) the resident escalated his complaint and stated as follows:
1. An inspection had not been done properly prior to him moving in. As such many faults had been discovered with his property.
2. A surveyor had visited the property on 19 January 2023 after 3 separate plumbers could not fix the toilet as the part was not available.
3. The electric shower was broken as the electric immersion boiler was broken. The conversion to mains had finally been approved but after a “long arduous struggle”.
4. From the 19 December 2022 to 25 January 2023 he had no hot water. He had to use a kettle and bucket to wash.
5. The complaint response was late and was only sent after he chased it up. The apology was disingenuous.
6. The landlord had not considered the number of appointments (around 15) and the time he had spent on the telephone to the landlord and the inconvenience this caused.
7. There had been a substantial physical and mental impact on him and on his two children aged 2 and 5.
8. The response from environmental health was outstanding.
9. There was mould growing on the corner wall from something leaking near the roof/guttering.
10. He requested compensation.
On 8 February 2023 the landlord advised that the surveyor had confirmed that they had not found any defects that would cause smoke transference from the flat below into the resident’s property. It could not see how it could take any further action regarding this matter. The resident responded that the landlord was “basically calling [him] a liar”.
On 22 February 2023 the resident contacted the landlord and stated that there had been no contact about the window replacement or the bathroom renovation. He advised he would pursue legal action. The landlord advised on 23 February 2023 that the quote for the window had been sent for approval. It would chase the bathroom works.
On 23 February 2023 the resident chased an update on the surveyor and bathroom renovations. He noted that during a telephone call the landlord had enquired whether he was experiencing phantom smells. He stated this was not the case.
The resident advised the landlord on 23 March 2023 that he had lost his job due to the impact of the situation.
On 17 April 2023 the landlord responded at stage 2 (the emailed letter was dated 15 March 2023) and stated as follows:
1. The property had been let according to the voids lettable standard. It was safe, clean and in a reasonable state of repair.
2. Its contractors could only “accelerate urgency” in some cases. They were employing additional contractors and personnel.
3. It had been informed that there were no outstanding works in the property.
4. The contractor had nothing on its system to show that the resident had reported a lack of hot water to them. However, as a goodwill gesture, it offered £50 for the inconvenience.
5. It would investigate the resident’s reports of calls not getting through to the right department and calls being cut off. It advised that when there was high call demand, this could create a system overload.
6. There was no further action it could take regarding the smell of smoke.
On 18 April 2023 the landlord visited the neighbour below and left a calling card. It noted that the neighbour had carers visit 4 times a day.
The resident referred his complaint to this Service on 12 June 2023. He advised on 9 November 2023 as follows:
1. The window had been replaced.
2. The landlord was lying that it inspected the property properly. The boiler was clearly broken and the property should never have been let.
3. He had reported not having hot water. He was without this for a very long time.
4. The £50 was a “slap in the face”.
5. It had been emotionally and financially draining.

Correspondence following the referral to this Service

The landlord advised this Service as follows:
1. Work should have been completed before the tenancy started following the mutual exchange. The landlord referred to a document which detailed these works. This document only contained photographs. It is not clear when these photographs were taken or what they purported to show.
2. There was no boiler within the property. The hot water was powered via a hot water cylinder which was heated via electricity. Heating was provided by storage heaters.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

It is noted that the resident raised the issue of the impact of the issues on his physical and mental health. Whilst this Service is an alternative to the courts, it is unable to establish legal liability or whether a landlord’s actions or lack of action have had a detrimental impact on a resident’s health. Nor can it calculate or award damages. The Ombudsman is therefore unable to consider any personal injury aspects of the resident’s complaint. These matters are likely better suited to consideration by a court or via a personal injury claim. However, this Service will consider the landlord’s handling of the issues and any distress and inconvenience this may have caused. This Service would expect the landlord’s response to consider the resident’s reports on how the issues were impacting on his health as such issues reflect the detriment experienced as a result of potential failures by the landlord.

Response to the resident’s concerns of cigarette smoke

The resident first raised this issue with the landlord on 19 December 2022, the day he moved into the property and advised that it was affecting his asthma. The landlord responded in a timely manner that same day and offered to write to the neighbour below. The resident declined this and asked the landlord to fill in holes in the property below. It is not clear what these holes were or where they were in the neighbour’s property or why the resident believed there to be holes. This Service has not seen evidence of the landlord having inspected the property below to ascertain if there were holes. It would have been reasonable for the landlord to have agreed to inspect the property below given the resident’s concerns.
As the smell was still present the following day and the resident had visited the neighbour below which had not resolved the issue, he requested that the landlord write to the neighbour. He requested works be done to his floor and the neighbour’s ceiling to stop the smell of smoke. Following a letter from the resident’s GP outlining the impact of the smoke on him (6 January 2023), the landlord advised the resident on 9 January 2023 it had not received any other reports and that it could not take enforcement action against the neighbour as they had not breached their tenancy agreement. It committed to speak to the neighbour which it did the following day and asked them to open the windows when smoking. This was reasonable and demonstrated that it had taken the resident’s concern seriously. However it had not considered at this point whether any defects with the neighbour’s property could be contributing to the issue.
The resident reiterated his belief that there were holes in the neighbour’s property on 23 January 2023. Following which the landlord committed to arrange a surveyors inspection of the neighbour’s property. It is not clear when the surveyor inspected the property below and this Service has not seen the surveyor’s report, however the landlord confirmed on 8 February 2023 that the surveyor had found no defects which could lead to smoke transference. This report is something however which the landlord should have been able to provide to this Service and to the resident. Doing so would have supported its decision making and provided transparency and reassurance to the resident.
The landlord was responsive to the resident’s concerns and took action to write to the neighbour below. It however took the landlord from 19 December 2022 (when the resident advised that he believed there were holes permitting smoke transference) to around 8 February 2023 for a surveyor to inspect the neighbour’s property. This was a period of 34 working days. This was outside of its 28 day timeframe for responding to routine repairs. There is no evidence that the landlord sought to expedite the surveyor’s inspection in light of the resident’s health condition and the impact he had advised the smoke was having on him. Nor did the landlord demonstrate that it had considered the impact on his mental health. It was clear that the resident found this situation distressing, having involved his GP, environmental health and the housing options team and having looked into grants which the landlord could utilise. Given the impact this was having on the resident, although the outcome of the inspection would likely be the same, the landlord should have carried this out sooner. This would have helped the resident feel as though he was being listened to and his concerns taken seriously.
Despite the resident advising the landlord of his vulnerabilities and the landlord having a record of these it failed to address this aspect of complaint at stage 1 (this will be considered in the complaint handling section below). At stage 2 it advised there was no further action it could take. At no point did the landlord acknowledge that it had not acted in line with its repairs policy in delaying its inspection for a possible repair issue. This was not appropriate, particularly in light of the reported impact it was having on the resident. As such a determination of service failure has been reached. To acknowledge the impact of this on the resident, compensation of £100 has been ordered. This is in line with the Housing Ombudsman remedies guidance for service failure where a resident has been impacted by a failure of the landlord. As the landlord did not provide a copy of the survey at the neighbour’s property to this Service, it has been ordered to complete a full inspection of the neighbour’s property or to provide evidence that it did so in February 2023.

Lack of hot water

The landlord had noted that the property had been inspected prior to the resident moving in and that the property was of a suitable standard. This was evidenced by the mutual exchange inspection report from 13 October 2022. It is noted that this report stated that the electrics (and therefore the supply of hot water) should be checked. This Service has not seen evidence that the hot water in the property had been checked prior to the resident moving in. This was not appropriate, raising concerns both about the hot water supply at the tenancy start date and in relation to the landlord’s record keeping.
The resident advised the landlord on 19 December 2022 that he had no hot water at the property (this was the day he moved in). The landlord responded to his email however it did not address the hot water aspect. It can therefore reasonably be concluded that the landlord had been aware that the resident had no hot water since 19 December 2022. The resident reiterated this concern to the landlord on 28 December 2022 and 24 January 2023. There is no evidence that the landlord responded to his concerns effectively. The landlord provided no repair logs to this Service, however the resident noted in an email to the landlord of 24 January 2023 that the boiler was being installed that day (the landlord advised this Service that this was a water cylinder rather than a boiler). Therefore from moving into the property, the resident was without hot water for a period of 36 days (19 December 2022 to 24 January 2023). This was not appropriate and this delay was not acknowledged or explained by the landlord.
The landlord’s record keeping in respect of this repair was poor. This was demonstrated in its stage 2 response which stated that the contractor had nothing on its system to show that the resident had reported a lack of hot water to it. It was inappropriate for the landlord to justify such a delay based on a lack of its contractor’s notes when the landlord had been made aware of this on the day the resident moved in (19 December 2022). It is not clear why the landlord did not have its own records independent of the contractor to record such issues.
The landlord failed to respond to this issue in an appropriate manner. It did not act in line with its repairs policy, nor the right to repair scheme which states that having no hot water in the winter should be repaired within 1 day. The landlord’s repair timeframe was significantly outside of this. The landlord’s lack of appreciation of its failure or the seriousness of the situation was particularly concerning in light of the resident’s vulnerability and the presence of young children in the property. A lack of hot water and sanitation would be considered hazards under the HHSRS. There is no evidence that the landlord considered its responsibilities under the HHSRS in responding to these issues.
The landlord offered £50 as a goodwill gesture for the inconvenience of not having hot water, despite it maintaining that it had been unaware of the issue. This offer of compensation was not proportionate to acknowledge the failures in respect of the resident having no access to hot water over the winter for over a month. The landlord’s failures amount to maladministration. To acknowledge the impact this failure had on the resident, compensation of £15 per day has been ordered for each day the resident was without hot water over winter (36 days). This totals £540 and includes the landlord’s previous offer of £50. This is in line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance where a failure has had a significant impact on a resident and the landlord failed to acknowledge this.

Bathroom and window repairs and associated contractor appointments

The mutual exchange inspection report from 13 October 2022 identified an issue with the toilet flush button not working. Despite this having been identified, by December 2022 when the resident moved in, this had not been repaired 2 months later. The resident contacted the landlord on the day he moved in to report issues with the toilet not flushing. Under the right to repair scheme a toilet not flushing is something which the landlord should have actioned the repair for as a priority. There is no evidence that it did so and the resident reported this again on 28 December 2022 along with the general condition of the bathroom and a leak from the shower pipe. No contractor visits were provided to this Service however on 28 December 2022 the resident advised the landlord that the cistern part was not available. It is not clear if he had been told this by a contractor and if so when it had advised this.
The landlord advised on 6 January 2023 that it had raised jobs for the toilet flush button to be replaced and the leaking pipework. It had raised an inspection for a surveyor to inspect the remaining issues (it is not clear if these were issues with the bathroom or other issues.) A plumber attended on 11 January 2023 and advised that the whole cistern would need to be replaced. (This information was provided by the resident as no details were provided by the landlord in respect of contractor appointments or findings). The resident raised his concerns about the communication between the landlord and its contractors and that plumbers had been arranged to attend despite the requirement for a new cistern having been identified earlier. He also raised similar concerns about the contractor not having kept him informed about the window repairs.
This Service has not seen records of when an issue with the window hinges was first reported (and this was not included in the mutual exchange report) although the resident advised that window hinges had been ordered on 5 January 2023. By 22 February 2023 the window works had not been completed and the resident chased this. The landlord advised on 23 February 2023 that the quote for the window had been sent for approval
It is not clear when these works were completed however the landlord confirmed within its stage 2 response (17 April 2023) that there was no outstanding works. The landlord failed to demonstrate that it had record of the works or the actions it had taken in respect of them. The resident advised in his correspondence to the landlord that he had had to make himself available at the property on a number of occasions due to miscommunication between the landlord and its contractors. Although this Service has not seen evidence of the number of missed appointments this is something the landlord should have addressed within its complaint responses.
Although the landlord apologised for communication issues with its contractors and advised that it was increasing the amount of staff, it did not acknowledge the inconvenience caused to the resident or offer any redress. This was not appropriate, particularly in respect of the resident not having had a fully functioning toilet. The landlord could not demonstrate that it had taken a resident focused approach or put things right for the resident. This amounts to maladministration. To acknowledge the frustration and distress caused to the resident over the period of time compensation of £250 has been ordered.

Complaint handling including knowledge and information management

The resident raised his complaint on 5 January 2023. It took the landlord 8 working days to acknowledge the complaint and 19 working days to respond at stage 1. This was outside of the landlord’s complaints procedure timeframe of 10 working days at stage 1. The stage 1 response did not acknowledge or apologise for this delay.
The stage 1 response was poor in that it did not respond to the resident’s concern about the cigarette smoke. Instead it advised him to contact his housing officer who would provide information on how to proceed with the complaint further. This was confusing as the resident had raised this as a formal complaint and it should have been responded to at stage 1.
The landlord took 52 working days to respond at stage 2 (1 February to 17 April 2023). This was significantly outside it timeframe of 20 working days as stated in its complaints policy. This delay was not addressed or explained and no redress was offered for the frustration this had caused the resident. This was not appropriate.
It is noted that both complaint response letters had different dates recorded within them than the date they were actually sent to the resident. The stage 1 response was dated 27 January 2023 but was not sent to the resident until 1 February 2023. The stage 2 was dated 15 March 2023 but was not sent until 17 April 2023, over 1 month later. This led to the resident questioning why this was the case and impacted his confidence in the landlord’s complaint responses being accurate. The landlord advised this Service that the later dates on both complaint responses were the dates they were posted this is confusing as the responses had been emailed and emailed on dates different to these given within the responses. This confusion demonstrates that the records and documents kept by the landlord were not accurate.
Good record keeping is vital in order to maintain a record of a landlord’s actions. It is also important in instilling confidence in the landlord and in its management systems and information. Landlords should therefore take steps to ensure that its record keeping practices are adequate, including retaining and having access to repair logs and that care is taken to provide all necessary documentation requested by the Ombudsman for its investigations.
It is evident throughout this case that the landlord failed to keep accurate records of works carried out at the property which meant that it could not demonstrate when works had been carried out. Its assurances within its complaint responses were unsubstantiated by evidence.
It is evident that communication between the landlord and its contractor’s was poor with multiple appointments having been arranged despite the issue having been identified. The landlord also failed to record the resident’s concerns about having no hot water on its system. The reason for tis is unclear but this is not appropriate.
The Housing Ombudsman’s May 2023 Spotlight Report on knowledge and information management refers specifically to these types of incidences and the landlord is encouraged to consider the impact its knowledge and information management has on the quality of its housing services. Poor record keeping affects its ability to investigate a complaint fairly and hinders the investigation by this Service.
In summary, the landlord did not demonstrate sufficient knowledge information management in order to keep a robust record of the works or the associated dates when they were carried out. Nor did the landlord act in line with its complaints policy. Consequently this service finds maladministration.
An improvement in the landlord’s record-keeping and complaint handling would result in significant benefits for both it and its residents. It would enable accurate information to be shared across teams and with residents which would improve the landlord’s responses in being able to evidence actions it had taken. It would also help with investigations by this Service in improving our understanding of the situation at the time. An order has been made for the landlord to review and improve its knowledge and information management and a recommendation has been made to ensure the dates of complaint responses are accurate. To acknowledge the frustration and inconvenience caused to the resident by these failures, compensation of £250 has been ordered.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure in respect of the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns of cigarette smoke.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in respect of the landlord’s response to the resident’s report of not having hot water.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in respect of the landlord’s handling of the bathroom and window repairs and associated contractor appointments.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling including knowledge and information management.

Reasons

The landlord failed to respond to the resident’s concerns about holes in the neighbour’s property causing the smoke transference. There is no evidence that the landlord sought to inspect the property below for a possible repair issue in a timely manner.
The landlord stated it had been unaware that the resident did not have hot water despite it having responded to his email where he stated this. It did not consider the hazard to the vulnerable resident or his children of not having hot water over the winter months. It failed to demonstrate that it had complied with its obligations under the HHSRS or the right to repair and maintain the property in a safe condition.
The landlord did not provide records of when the works to the property had been completed. It failed to address the resident’s concerns about the number of contractor appointments he had had to make himself available for or for the miscommunication about what works had been identified. The landlord failed to acknowledge the inconvenience caused to the resident or offer any redress.
The landlord did not respond to the resident’s complaints in line with its complaints policy. The dates on the complaint responses did not match the dates the responses were sent. The landlord’s overall record keeping was poor with it having no record of the resident having reported having no hot water despite it having replied to his email. It lacked effective communication with its contractors which impacted on its ability to ensure works were carried out. The lack of repairs logs and evidence of communication with its contractors affected the investigation by the landlord and hindered the investigation by this Service.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

The landlord is ordered to take the following action within 4 weeks of this report and provide evidence of compliance to this Service:
1. Apologise, in writing, to the resident for the failures identified in this case.
2. Pay a total of £1140 compensation (this includes the landlord’s previous offer of £50) direct to the resident, made up as follows:
  1. £100 to acknowledge the impact on the resident of the landlord’s failures in responding to his reports of cigarette smoke.
  2. £540 to acknowledge the impact on the resident of the landlord’s failures in responding to his reports of having no hot water.
  3. £250 to acknowledge the impact on the resident of the landlord’s failures in respect of the bathroom and window repairs and associated contractor appointments.
  4. £250 to acknowledge the impact on the resident of the landlord’s failures in complaint handling and information management.
3. Complete an inspection of the neighbour’s property in respect of the resident’s concerns of cigarette smoke or provide evidence that this was carried out in February 2023.
4. In accordance with paragraph 54(g) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord is ordered to carry out a senior management review of the resident’s case. It should provide a copy of the review to its senior leadership team and this Service within 8 weeks of the date of this report. The review should consider:
  1. The evidence that was available (or may have been available) regarding the resident’s reports of having no hot water and any missed opportunities there were between December 2022 and April 2023.
  2. How it will ensure effective communication with its contractors.
  3. Its processes for recording repair issues on its system when they are reported by residents and how it categorises such reports.
  4. How it will consider household vulnerabilities when responding to concerns.
  5. How its systems can be improved to enable it to respond to resident’s communications, particularly in respect of urgent issues.
  6. Any staff training that may improve its future response to similar cases.

Recommendations

It is recommended that the landlord review its processes to ensure the dates of complaint responses are accurate.