Landlords can now complete the Complaint Handling Code Annual Submissions form. More information is available online.

Crawley Borough Council (202200784)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202200784

Crawley Borough Council

28 August 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 handling of:
    1. Repairs needed to the extractor fan and ceiling in the resident’s bathroom.
    2. The associated complaint.

Background

  1. The resident is a secure tenant.
  2. On 19 October 2020, the resident reported to the landlord that the extractor fan in her bathroom was not working. An appointment was subsequently arranged to address this on 26 October 2020, however the landlord was unable to access the property.
  3. On 10 February 2021, the resident expressed dissatisfaction with the lack of progress in relation to a number of issues in the bathroom. She advised that there had been missed appointments and she had needed to repeatedly chase the landlord for updates with no resolution. She advised that her extractor fan was not working and was leaking, causing a coloured puddle on the floor. The walls were patchy from damp, the silicone and grout was mouldy, tiles were cracked, and the plastering on the ceiling was cracking and coming away. She had also been told that the isolator switch for the fan needed to be moved so it was outside of the bathroom. She added that the dampness was affecting her daughter’s skin condition.
  4. In response, the landlord upheld the complaint and apologised for the poor service the resident had received and any distress caused. It identified that these works had remained outstanding and arranged for operatives to attend and provide quotes for the necessary work. Repairs were completed to the tiling and walls in the resident’s bathroom as well as other repairs to her kitchen floor on 19 April 2021. However, the resident remained dissatisfied as no work had been completed to her bathroom ceiling or extractor fan. The landlord subsequently advised, within its stage two response, that it had arranged for scaffolding to be erected to allow operatives to access the roof to establish the best route for a new fan duct and seal any vents causing water penetration. It explained that the ceiling would also be corrected as part of this work.
  5. Records indicate that scaffolding was erected and an inspection was carried out on 25 May 2021. Works to clear blocked guttering were completed on 7 June 2021. Work to replace the fan, fit a roof tile, connect the ducting and reposition the isolator switch were completed on 1 July 2021 and a leaking radiator in the bathroom was replaced on the same day. The records indicate that operatives also attended to remove and re-plaster the ceiling in the bathroom on 13 August 2021.
  6. The resident advised this Service, however, that she remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s final response. She explained that she experienced further cracking in the ceiling, and while the landlord had made further attempts to address this, expressed concerns that the cause of the cracks could not have been identified if the issue was reoccurring. She was additionally dissatisfied with the landlord’s communication. The landlord has confirmed that all works have since been completed (on 22 July 2022).

Assessment and findings

Scope

  1. The resident has suggested that the issues impacting the property also had an adverse impact on her daughter’s health. The Ombudsman does not doubt the resident’s comments. Indeed the Ombudsman’s own Damp and Mould Spotlight report (available on the Housing Ombudsman Service website) noted that one of the areas said to be significantly impacted by residents, was their health and wellbeing.
  2. It should be noted, however, that it is beyond the remit of this Service to determine whether any omission in the landlord’s actions resulted in an adverse impact on the resident’s (or resident’s family’s) health. The resident may wish to seek independent legal advice if she wishes to pursue a personal injury claim as this would be the appropriate means of escalating this aspect of her complaint.
  3. This is in accordance with paragraph 39(i) of the Scheme which provides that: ‘The Ombudsman will not investigate complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion concern matters where the Ombudsman considers it quicker, fairer, more reasonable, or more effective to seek a remedy through the courts, a designated person, other tribunal or procedure’.
  4. Whilst this aspect is therefore outside of the scope of the investigation, consideration has been given to whether the landlord acted appropriately in the circumstance, and in light of any pre-existing medical conditions it was aware of at the time.

The landlord’s handling of repairs needed in the resident’s bathroom.

  1. The landlord’s tenancy handbook confirms that it is responsible for repairs needed to roofs, pipework, ceilings, internal plastering and installations including extractor fans. The handbook does not specify timescales for types of work. However, in line with best practice, routine repairs should usually be completed within approximately 28 calendar days. In some cases, repairs may take longer; for example, where further investigation or scaffolding is required. Moreover, the landlord would be expected to provide regular updates to the resident, explain the reason for any delays, and provide an expected completion date. The resident would be responsible for allowing access to the property for the landlord to complete repairs.
  2. In this case, it is not disputed that there was a delay in completing repairs to the extractor fan and ceiling in the resident’s bathroom from October 2020. The records indicate that the resident first reported that her extractor fan was not working on 19 October 2020 and repairs were not completed until 1 July 2021, approximately seven and a half months later. In addition, the resident raised concerns that the damp was affecting her ceiling and the plastering was coming away specifically as part of her complaint and there were significant delays in the progression of these works.
  3. The landlord initially acted appropriately by arranging an appointment for the extractor fan within a reasonable timescale following the resident’s reports in October 2020, however, the operatives reported no access to the property. The landlord’s policies do not confirm the process that should be followed where access had not been successful, although it would usually be the resident’s responsibility to contact the landlord and rebook the appointment. In her complaint in February 2021, the resident explained that she had been pursuing updates from the landlord but had received no resolution. The landlord has not provided contact logs from this period, and as such, the Ombudsman cannot determine the extent to which the resident had pursued her concerns or whether the landlord should have re-booked the appointment at an earlier date prior to the complaint being raised in February 2021.
  4. Following the resident’s complaint in February 2021, nonetheless, there was a significant delay in completing works to the extractor fan which it does not appear was managed appropriately. Whilst this may have been partly as the landlord needed to investigate the cause of the issue and source scaffolding, there is no evidence to suggest that the resident was provided with an expected completion date or an explanation of the cause of the delay. This was likely to have caused uncertainty as her expectations were not managed by the landlord. The delay was also likely to have caused additional inconvenience as the extractor fan was not working and the resident had reported that she was also experiencing damp and mould within the bathroom as a result of having no moisture extraction.
  5. In addition, whilst it was reasonable for the landlord to wait until the leak from the extractor fan had been resolved to carry out plastering works, evidence demonstrates that this matter remained unresolved for several additional months. The landlord has confirmed with this Service that despite undertaking plastering works in August 2021 and attempting to re–address this in September 2021, the bathroom decoration was not fully completed until July 2022, more than a year since the initial complaint. This Service is therefore not satisfied that the landlord did enough to ensure that the issue was properly resolved for the resident within a reasonable period of time. Where there is a longstanding and reoccurring issue, the Ombudsman would expect the landlord to take proactive steps to resolve the issue at the earliest opportunity.
  6. In relation to the landlord’s management of appointments, evidence indicates that there were approximately ten failed appointments which related to the extractor fan and cracked ceiling between October 2020 and July 2022. The Ombudsman is aware that the resident raised concerns about missed appointments in her complaint. However, the landlord has advised this Service that only two appointments in January 2022 were missed by its operatives and that all other repair appointments between October 2020 and July 2022 were either cancelled by the resident, or ‘carded’ as its operatives could not gain access to the property. As this matter is disputed, and without defining evidence, it is difficult for this Service to establish whether there was indeed several appointments that the landlord missed. What’s more, if many appointments were cancelled by the resident, this Service would expect her to have re-arranged the appointments where (for any reason) she had been unable to facilitate works that had been scheduled.
  7. The landlord’s records have offered a lack of clarity in that it notes a ‘completion date’ for each repair but does not state whether the appointments were successful, cancelled, carded or missed. The Ombudsman would have expected to see clear evidence, such as contact logs to support the landlord’s assertion that the resident had cancelled appointments herself, including when and how the appointments were cancelled. It might have also been reasonable for the landlord to have set out its position regarding the repairs following repeat cancellations or no access appointments within its complaint responses.
  8. In further considering the landlord’s record keeping, it has been noted that it is unable to explain the reasons for its overall delay in completing the resident’s repairs. The Ombudsman accepts that there were times – such as when the resident contracted Covid-19 – where the halt on works was outside of the landlord’s control. However, overall, the delays in this case were significant and the landlord has not provided sufficient evidence to demonstrate that these were unavoidable or reasonable in the circumstance.
  9. Whilst the landlord acknowledged that a poor service had been provided to the resident and also an initial failure to complete repairs, it made no attempt to recognise this with an offer of compensation. In the Ombudsman’s view, however, financial compensation would have been appropriate in recognition of the inconvenience, time, and trouble expended in pursuing a resolution. It also would have been appropriate to acknowledge the lapse in good service, that the landlord recognised for itself.
  10. The Ombudsman has therefore determined that there was maladministration, and that to satisfactorily reflect the level of detriment, the landlord should award the resident £350 compensation. This amount is in line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance (available on the Housing Ombudsman Service website) which states that amounts between £250-£700 may be awarded where maladministration has been determined.
  11. For completeness, the Ombudsman is aware that following the works to re-plaster the resident’s ceiling in August 2021, due to a failure to cover the bath, the resident reported that the contractors had caused damage (a chip) to the bath. This was subsequently repaired on 27 July 2022 during which time, the loft and extractor fan were also checked and no issues were found. In the Ombudsman’s opinion, however, this repair should have been undertaken significantly sooner than the landlord did. Given that this was linked to the works to the bathroom, and would have been another bathroom job for the landlord to complete before the matter was fully resolved, the Ombudsman has taken this into consideration too.

The landlord’s handling of the associated complaint

  1. The landlord’s tenancy handbook confirms that the landlord has a two-stage complaints process and at each stage it should respond within ten working days or explain the reasons why it is unable to do so. The Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code sets out requirements for member landlords that will allow them to respond to complaints effectively and fairly. It states that landlords must address all points raised in the complaint and provide clear reasons for any decisions, referencing the relevant policy, law and good practice where appropriate. In considering the landlord’s handling of a complaint, the Ombudsman considers whether this was in line with the Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles: be fair, put things right and learn from outcomes.
  2. In this case the landlord provided its stage one complaint response to the resident approximately seven working days outside of its ten-working day timescale at stage one. However, it acted appropriately by informing the resident of the expected delay in advance in order to manage her expectations effectively. In addition, it acted appropriately by providing its stage two complaint response within a reasonable timeframe in line with its published timescales. However, it failed to fully address the residents’ concerns about its communication, the delay in completing repairs, and missed appointments within its complaint responses.
  3. The landlord’s failure to explain its position regarding these aspects of the complaint within its responses meant that the resident was unable to challenge any facts presented by the landlord, such as its position regarding failed appointments. Whilst the landlord acknowledged and apologised for its “poor service”, it did not specify what this entailed, identify why its failings had occurred or demonstrate that it had taken steps to learn from the complaint in order to prevent similar errors occurring in the future.
  4. While the landlord should have used its stage two response to recognise the adverse impact that its handling of matters had on the resident as a whole, it overlooked this opportunity. This Service is therefore not satisfied that it did enough to put things right. In view of this, the Ombudsman has ordered the landlord to award the resident £50 in recognition of its handling of the complaint.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in respect of its handling of repairs needed to the extractor fan and ceiling in the resident’s bathroom.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was a service failure by the landlord in respect of its handling of the associated complaint.

Orders

  1. The Ombudsman orders the landlord to take the following action within four weeks of receiving this determination:
    1. The landlord is to pay the resident £400, comprised of:
      1. £350 in recognition of the inconvenience, time, and trouble experienced by the resident in pursuing a resolution, and to reflect the delays and poor communication.
      2.                      £50 in recognition of the inconvenience caused to the resident as a result of the landlord’s complaint handling.

Recommendations

  1. It is recommended that the landlord conducts a review of its record keeping processes, ensuring that there is a clear audit trail for repairs, which provides details of any failed appointments, when contact was made with residents, what was said and what the agreed next steps and expectations were.
  2. It is recommended that the landlord contacts the resident to confirm that there has not been any reoccurring issues. If there has been, it should complete the required works within four weeks or provide an estimated completion date where it is not able to do so.
  3. It is recommended that the landlord considers carrying out staff training for complaint handlers to ensure that responses clearly outline any failings and establish points of learning in order to prevent similar occurrences in the future.