Brent Council (202010755)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202010755

Brent Council

31 March 2022

Our approach

The Housing Ombudsman’s approach to investigating and determining complaints is to decide what is fair in all the circumstances of the case. This is set out in the Housing Act 1996 and the Housing Ombudsman Scheme (the Scheme). The Ombudsman considers the evidence and looks to see if there has been any ‘maladministration’, for example whether the landlord has failed to keep to the law, followed proper procedure, followed good practice or behaved in a reasonable and competent manner.

Both the resident and the landlord have submitted information to the Ombudsman and this has been carefully considered. Their accounts of what has happened are summarised below. This report is not an exhaustive description of all the events that have occurred in relation to this case, but an outline of the key issues as a background to the investigation’s findings.

The complaint

1. The complaint is about the landlord’s response to the resident’s request for a communal sink.

Background and summary of events

Background

2. The resident is a secure tenant of the landlord, a local authority. The property is a flat in a block.
3. The landlord’s tenancy terms and conditions sets out that it will maintain and repair the structure and insides of all the shared areas of the building that the property is in, including floors and passageways, and that it should be informed of any faults as soon as they are noticed. The landlord delivers its repairs obligations through responsive repairs and planned repairs.

Summary of events

In June 2020, the resident emailed the landlord and queried when a sink and pipes or drains were going to be installed, to catch water from a ground floor tap at the block. She said residents were having to walk through water to access a bin chute and she highlighted that there was a communal sink at another nearby block. In September 2020, she emailed again to say her query was outstanding, and requested installation of a sink to prevent water remaining on the ground on the ground floor. In October and November 2020, she highlighted the delay in response to the request and asked for a stage one complaint to be raised. On 18 December 2020, she directly emailed the landlord’s complaint service and complained about its failure to put in a sink and drainage; failure to reply to the repairs requests and complaint; and failure to provide compensation.

4. On 29 January 2021, the landlord issued its stage one response, after advising and apologising for response delays on 19 and 22 January 2021:
   1. It noted the resident had contacted to request a sink in the communal area in June, September and October 2020, to prevent water remaining on the floor and because cleaners required fresh water to clean the block; and had then contacted to complain in November 2020. It acknowledged and apologised for a lack of response and delays responding to emails; lack of adherence to complaints procedure; and lack of action to investigate the request to have a communal sink installed. It said the issues had been discussed with relevant managers, who it said extended their apologies, and it awarded £50 compensation.
   2. It detailed that an inspection was carried out on 15 January 2021 where the issue was attempted to be discussed with the resident but she was unavailable. It said that the inspection led to the conclusion that installation of a sink in a communal hallway was not practical, but an alternative option was to relocate a communal water tap to an adjacent bin area and install a sink there. It said that the issue was not considered a repair and had been referred to a different department to take the matter forward.
5. The resident expressed dissatisfaction with the response and did not feel compensation She said the compensation was not broken down and suggested £175 for the delays and the lack of response, action and resolution of the issue. She queried the attempt to discuss matters with her, saying no appointment was arranged and no calling card was left. She noted that the staff that inspected was aware there was no sink and had said the tap was one their team used. She raised dissatisfaction with the complaint response delay, and also queried where she should have originally referred the enquiry, raising concern that ignoring of requests and lack of reply was a recurring pattern by the landlord.
6. On 11 March 2021, the landlord issued its final response. This said:
   1. It acknowledged feedback from the resident.
   2. It was not unreasonable for the inspection to take place without prior arrangement, considering there was a Covid19 lockdown and the purpose of the visit was to inspect the location to assess the viability of the request.
   3. It acknowledged that timescales for commitments should be provided and noted that there was no evidence of further action since the stage one response. It said there was a current project to improve quality of complaint responses which addressed such aspects.
   4. It asked the resident to confirm if the alternative option suggested was a reasonable solution. It said that if it was, a surveyor should assess the feasibility and cost and also whether any repair was required for the existing tap, then inform the resident of the decision. It detailed timescales for these.
   5. It provided explanation about the distinction between the department which made decisions about repairs and the department which made decisions about requests such as the resident’s, and provided contact details to use.
   6. It explained there were occasions where it was not possible to give notice for complaint response delays, but it acknowledged it was preferable to give as much notice as possible and said this would be highlighted in the complaint service improvement project. It noted however that this was acknowledged in the initial response and reflected in compensation awarded.
   7. It apologised for lapses in service and awarded a further £100, which was shared with another complaint assessed in the final response.
7. On 16 March 2021, the resident says she emailed staff that the response said to contact if she agreed the suggested option was reasonable. She said she was unable to comment if it was reasonable, as this would require plans and a health and safety risk assessment of how estate cleaners could get regular access. She said she presumed that as a surveyor was already visiting on 23 March 2021, they could do an inspection at the same time.
8. The resident contacted this Service in March 2021. She said the landlord was not being clear about what would happen and when, and that a surveyor should have been sent out long ago. She said the landlord had not resolved the issue and had put the onus back on her, and she requested compensation of £200. She said that during a visit for a separate issue, she showed a surveyor the tap that had no outlet for running water except onto the ground, but had heard nothing since and water was still able to run inside the building with no escape. She says the surveyor’s report that she showed them the bin housing was evidence of this. She said there is nowhere for the water to go and meant the area became wet and dirty. She said the issue had inconvenienced her and left her out of pocket. She said she was seeking for a sink to be installed like other blocks, or to lock off the water and put in the suggested solution within the next four months. She said she also sought compensation for action not being taken to remedy the issues in a timely manner. She said the landlord ignored or did not reply to emails sent to a certain inbox, and she wanted a system to be put in place to automatically acknowledge emails based on the occupancy type.

Scope of the investigation

9. This investigation understands that the resident feels that the landlord should accommodate her request, as water from the existing tap runs on the floor and there is a sink at another block. In relation to the issues raised, it is not the Ombudsman’s role to definitively decide that such a request should be fulfilled–  as this is not within our role or expertise. The Ombudsman can assess whether, when considering issues, the landlord followed proper procedure, followed good practice, and responded reasonably, considering all the circumstances of the case – which this investigation goes on to do.

Assessment and findings

10. The landlord is obligated to consider any reports and take steps to resolve any issues it is responsible for, under its policies and its responsibilities set out in the tenancy and the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985. There is however limited evidence for the landlord’s obligations for the resident’s request, as the landlord’s policies in respect of communal areas are of a maintenance rather than improvement nature.
11. This investigation notes that the resident reports that water goes on the ground and water had to be walked through to access certain areas, however the information provided to the landlord during the complaint does not appear to immediately evidence that this is something that is significantly unreasonable. This investigation also notes that another block having a sink is seen as a reason that the resident’s block should also have a sink. While this investigation understands the resident’s view, other blocks having a sink does not necessarily mean that all blocks should, and as freeholder it is ultimately within the landlord’s discretion to decide on such a matter.
12. In this case, the landlord took appropriate steps to inspect and consider the resident’s request, and it detailed a course of action it would take to explore an alternative option if she confirmed she was happy with this. The resident advises the issue was subsequently raised with a surveyor when they were inspecting other issues, however this investigation notes that this arrangement was not in line with the process that the landlord detailed. The landlord’s progression of the matter appears to reasonably depend on the resident’s explicit confirmation to the landlord that she is happy for it to take steps to arrange for an appropriate surveyor to assess the feasibility of the alternative option suggested. While the resident is unhappy that some onus was put on her to progress matters, this Service considers the landlord to have provided reasonable response, considering its limited obligations and current evidence available about the impact of a lack of a sink.
13. This investigation notes there was a seven month delay in the landlord’s response to enquiries about the request, and a three month delay in response to a requested complaint. It was therefore appropriate that the landlord acknowledged, apologised and compensated for this, and confirmed steps had been taken to improve service through raising issues with managers. This was in accordance with the Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles to be fair, put things right and learn from outcomes. This Service does not see evidence being provided to the landlord of further inconvenience or incurred expenses as a result of the issue, and the amount appears reasonable for the issues in the course of the matter.
14. In the Ombudsman’s opinion, the landlord’s response to the resident’s request for a communal sink was therefore reasonable. While the landlord delayed in response to the resident’s enquiries, it provided appropriate acknowledgement and remedy, and provided a reasonable response to the request which appears to go beyond its obligations and evidence available that the communal tap is required to have a sink.

Determination (decision)

15. In accordance with paragraph 55(b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was reasonable redress offered by the landlord in its response to the resident’s request for a communal sink.

Reasons

16. While the landlord delayed in response to the resident’s enquiries, it provided appropriate acknowledgement and remedy, and provided a reasonable response to the request which appears to go beyond its obligations and evidence available that the communal tap is required to have a sink.

Orders and recommendations

Recommendations

17. The landlord to pay the £50 compensation to the resident, if it has not already done so.