Croydon Council (201910960)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 201910960

Croydon Council

20 July 2021

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. handling of repairs which the resident reported when she moved into the property and;
2. complaint handling.

Background and summary of events

The resident is a secure tenant of a first floor maisonette with upper and lower front doors at ground and first floor levels. The tenancy started on 29 July 2019.
The landlord has provided a Void inspection schedule dated 23 June 2019. This document indicates approximately one hundred “minor” void works were carried out to the property as part of the Voids process.
On or around 20 August 2019, the resident raised a complaint with the landlord that it had not completed repairs it had agreed to complete before she moved in. She provided a list of repairs she found upon moving into the property, including:
1. The lack of a working window in the WC.
2. No working ventilation in the bathroom; the skylight was sealed shut.
3. A hole underneath the radiator in the first floor hallway and by a window in the kitchen.
4. A draught from the window in the second bedroom.
5. A missing base unit and worktop in the kitchen.
6. Missing tiles on the balcony. She said that someone had attended but had only offered to remove all the tiles.
7. The previous tenant’s satellite dish and cabling was hanging and causing an obstruction outside the kitchen.
8. A hole in the bathroom floor under the bath and wood is rotting.
The resident questioned whether the property was ready to let referring to the Homes (Fitness for Human Habitation) Act 2018 and Building Control Regulations. She said that a bathroom and separate WC are required to have adequate ventilation.
The resident said that she had received a call the previous day to book in the installation of the new vent for the bathroom but questioned why it had not been done previously when it was noted before the tenancy commenced. She referred to health and safety concerns as her baby grandson was born on 2 August 2019 and had come home to the repair issues.
On 2 September 2019, the resident provided details of further outstanding repairs to the property including:
1. Kitchen wall requiring replastering as currently there was bare plasterboard.
2. A gap at the top of the partition kitchen wall.
3. Signs of previous issues on the living room ceiling.
4. Insufficient power sockets in kitchen.
5. Hole by window in kitchen covered by tiles and adhesive.
6. Bathroom is “severely hot” (vent had been repaired).
7. Blockage of drains outside front door when it rains and leaks into hallway floor.
8. New front doors on both levels need inspecting as they are not safe to open without causing “injury to fingers”.
On or around 10 September 2019, the landlord’s contractor unblocked the drains outside of the property.
On or around 16 September 2019, the resident reported a leak into her front room which was coming from the bathroom. The resident’s plumber attended the property to stop the leak. On or around 26 September 2019, the resident reported to the landlord that water was leaking in through the gap at the bottom of the upper front door.
On 18 October 2019, the landlord provided a stage one complaint response. The landlord referred to a conversation with the resident on 26 September 2019 and listed the outstanding repairs as at that date to be:
1. Repairs to the front door.
2. A hole in the floorboard under the bath.
3. A slow leak from the waste to the bath, wash hand basin and overflow under the bath.
4. A faulty radiator in the second bedroom.
The landlord said that it had attended the property on 27 September 2019 and agreed to complete various works between then and 2 October 2019. The landlord said that some works had been completed, including:
1. Remedial works to the front entry door which was left operational. A water test confirmed that the door was watertight. The doorstop was removed.
2. The flooring under the bath was renewed. It was also identified that repairs were required to the floor in the WC and floor under the wash hand basin in the bathroom, which were damaged due to historic leaks. This was repaired.
3. The bath waste was renewed and reconnected, a water test was complete which confirmed that there were no leaks and the bath panel was re-fitted. The landlord referred to the bath taps having been renewed by the resident and to issues with the trim at the end of the bath, which had arisen since she had moved into the property. It said these had been rectified to ensure the bath was left watertight.
4. The bedroom radiator was repaired.
5. Expanding foam which the resident had filled a hole in the hallway with was removed and the hole was filled and made good.
6. A hook and chord that operated the WC skylight was relocated to a higher position so that children cannot reach it.
7. Additionally, it had been arranged for a plasterer to attend on 1 November 2019 to plaster the kitchen wall.
The landlord said that it had monitored the repairs and the resident had confirmed that she was satisfied with the repairs. In relation to water entering the property through the front door, the landlord said that unless there were wet weather conditions at the time that the void works were being undertaken and/or evidence of a recent leak, it was not likely that the leak would have been identified. It was only identified once she had moved in and rain had occurred.
In relation to damaged floorboards, its records stated that during the void stage all floors were sound. It was only when the bath panel and a section of the downstairs front room ceiling was removed that the damage became evident. However, it acknowledged that the hole under the bath should have been identified during the void works and it apologised that this was missed and for the inconvenience caused.
In relation to recent concerns the resident had raised regarding the front door, the landlord said it would contact her by 23 October 2019 to discuss and arrange any necessary repairs. Regarding the resident’s query about strip lighting in the kitchen, the landlord said it had viewed the void photographs and there was no strip light in place therefore it was not responsible for installing one. Regarding her suggestion that a double kitchen unit had been removed, the landlord said from looking at the void photographs, no units had been removed. It was required to provide two base units and one wall unit under its lettable standards and its records confirm that this was requirement was met.
On 19 October 2019, the resident requested her complaint be escalated stating that her original complaint had not been addressed. She specifically referred to:
1. A missing seal at the bottom of the front door and that while the landlord said this could not be identified unless the weather triggered it, she considered that the voids team who fitted the door should have inspected it based on “Grenfell fire requirements”.
2. In relation to the hole in the floorboards under the bath, she said that it was there before the tenancy started and that an apology was not enough. She said that the damage caused and time taken to rectify the hole, had caused the damage to walls and floors. She said she had called a plumber due to a leak from the bath which had nothing to do with the new taps but due to a missing section of the over floor pipe.
3. She said the landlord had not addressed the bathroom vent which had a fully working CCTV camera that had been fitted by the previous tenant which was why it had never worked. She said that landlord had signed the property off and then refused her continuous requests for repairs.
4. She said the response ignores most of the complaint and the damage, cost time and stress the issues had caused. She said she would be seeking advice about the front door, lack of a working window in the WC and the “hanging rope” installed as part of the bathroom window – she asked if this was allowed based on health and safety.
Internal correspondence of the landlord states that following this email, it contacted the resident and arranged for an inspection and it was agreed that the landlord would provide a response once the works were completed.
On 4 November 2019, the resident followed up her escalation request to clarify her complaint. She referred to her original complaint of 20 August and her email of 2 September 2019. She noted that three issues had been resolved on 23 August 2019. She said that on 12 September 2019, she reported the water leak to the bathroom and ceiling in the front room, referring to attached photographs. She said that the front door currently could not open or close unless it is kicked due to the wood swelling. She said that the door was not stained or varnished or sealed to protect against the weather and now that the water had fully seeped in, the door did not meet fire safety requirements. She noted the landlord had arranged an inspection for 13 November 2019.
In relation to the hole in the kitchen wall, she questioned whether it should have been filled in before a tile was put over it. She said the wall was uneven. She said that the front door leak had created uneven and swelling to the floor and lino. She said she paid over £600 to floor the front room. She said that when the repairs were carried out to the ceiling, her flooring was damaged which was now dipped and warping. She also said that based on photos of the ceiling, there was clear sign of water damage before the leak yet they were ignored. She disagreed that the taps she had installed caused a leak. She said that the damage was there before the start of the tenancy and she raised it with contractors but nothing was done.
She said that the landlord was to come back to her in relation to the surveyor’s advice about the front door but it did not. It had not called her by 23 October as agreed, instead she had called the landlord the previous week leading to the inspection of 13 November. She referred to the stress and time the works had caused as well as dust and dirt left from the ceiling and floorboard works. She referred to her grandson having breathing problems meaning he could not live there until the work was completed. She also referred to taking time off and the inconvenience of “excessive appointments”.
On 6 November 2019, the landlord acknowledged her email and said it would provide a response to the issues she had raised.
On 8 January 2020, the resident chased up the repairs with the landlord. She requested compensation of the “excessive time taken” to resolve the issues. She also referred to paying dual rent for her previous property and taking “excessive” time off work. She said her major concerns were the front door replacement and the hanging rope from the window closer in the bathroom. She followed this up on 16 January 2020.
The landlord said it had referred her email on to the appropriate person and it was making enquiries with the contractors in relation to the repairs. On 17 January 2020, she informed the landlord that she had received a voicemail about arranging plastering of the kitchen for 18 February 2020 but she had not heard about the other works. She said that the front door barely opened. She requested that the landlord did not send the plasterer who had attended previously as he had intimidated her and refused to leave the property. In her correspondence the resident referred to her ongoing ill health and that she and her family had previously been victims of crimes, which was why they had moved to the property.
On 20 January 2020, the landlord informed the resident that her complaint was being investigated at stage two and it aimed to respond by 17 February 2020.It also said that she would be contacted about the scope of the works the following day.
The landlord has provided a note of the resident’s telephone call to its complaints team on 20 January 2020. The resident referred to her request to escalate to stage two on 19 October 2019. She listed outstanding repairs as:
1. Further plastering required in the kitchen and decoration.
2. Replacement front door.
3. Dangerous rope in bathroom.
4. Satellite dish and cabling from roof needs removing and CCTV wiring that needs removing.
The resident informed the landlord that she had been told in November 2019 that works would be carried out but she had chased these a number of times but they were not done. She also reiterated her concern about the behaviour of the plasterer who attended on 1 November 2019 and said that the landlord had agreed not to send the same plasterer.
On 27 January 2020, the resident informed the landlord that the remaining works had still not been arranged. She informed the landlord that she had an operation booked for 18 March 2020 and that the works needed to be completed before this date.
On 5 February 2020, the landlord provided the resident with a scope of works based on its inspection of 13 November 2019, including:
1. The front door was replaced with a like for like wooden door. When the replacement was carried out, a weatherboard was not installed and because of this, rainwater was entering the property. Following her complaint, it had installed a weatherboard. The landlord had observed at the inspection that due to the design of the building, the upper front door was exposed to the elements and the door had slightly bowed, therefore it had arranged for it to be replaced with a UPVC door. Its contractors were waiting a quote for the replacement, following which they would make contact to arrange the appointment.
2. It was not entirely satisfied with the plastering to the kitchen therefore the contractor would carry out remedial works. An appointment had been arranged for 18 February 2020.
3. It had found that the rope system bathroom window closer was not operating as it should so it had arranged for this to be replaced with a mechanical pole system. An appointment was made for 14 February 2020.
The landlord apologised for the delay in carrying out the works and for the inconvenience caused. It said it would ensure that the repairs including the door replacement would be completed prior to 18 March 2020.
On 17 February 2020, the landlord provided a final response to the complaint. The landlord said that following an inspection on 13 November 2019 and subsequent correspondence various works had been agreed:
1. Replacing the door with UPVC door.
2. Replacing the rope system window closer in the bathroom with a mechanical pole system. Appointment arranged for 14 February 2020.
3. Remedial work to plaster in the kitchen, install plasterboard under the window, skim and decorate the kitchen. Appointment arranged for 18 February 2020.
4. The landlord said that there was a breakdown of communication between it and the contractor which meant that the works were overlooked. The landlord apologised that it took the escalation of her complaint to progress the issues and it acknowledge that the service it provided fell below the standard it expected. The landlord concluded that as the resident was due to have surgery in March, the contractors would ensure that all repairs were completed by 18 March.
Plasterworks to the kitchen were not completed on 18 February 2020 as the same plasterer whom the resident had raised a concern about, had attended resulting in the resident turning them away. The plasterworks were however completed on 24 February 2020 after the landlord arranged for a different plasterer to attend. Decorating works were not completed at this time but an appointment was arranged for 26 March 2020 although this did not go ahead due to COVID-19 restrictions coming into force on 23 March 2020. The UPVC front door was not replaced by 18 March 2020 as agreed.
Subsequent communications between the parties from 3 July 2020 to 13 August 2020 confirm that the front door and bathroom window at the property were replaced by the landlord on 14 July 2020. On 27 July 2020, the landlord advised its decorators had returned from furlough and were available to carry out the decoration works to the kitchen wall in August 2020 however the resident advised that she had arranged for this work to be carried out privately. This was because she was told by the contractor on 3 July 2020 that the landlord’s decorators were still on furlough.
On 18 September 2020, the resident confirmed to the Ombudsman that no repairs were outstanding although she had paid for the kitchen to be painted and she requested this cost be reimbursed. The resident also explained to the Ombudsman that she had put down new flooring soon after moving into the property and the flooring was damaged due to the leak from the bathroom and the front door due to delay by the landlord in completing repairs. She requested the cost of the floor be reimbursed. She also referred to:
1. Paying three weeks’ rent on her old property after accepting the new property.
2. Being unhappy about how long the repairs took and inconvenience caused, as well as the potential risk she was under due to not having a fully working front door.
During the Ombudsman’s mediation process, the resident provided an estimate dated 26 May 2020 to take up flooring in the hallway, kitchen and front room due to the front door leak and replace with tiles totalling £900. This would also address damage to the front room flooring due to the leak from the bathroom. She said the materials are an additional £400.She also said she spent £240 on painting the kitchen. She requested loss of earnings between 27 September and 2 October 2019 (five days). She said there was a further failed appointment on 18 February 2020 as the landlord sent the plasterer who had intimidated her previously despite the landlord saying it would not send this person again. She requested loss of earnings for 18 and 24 February 2020.
The landlord agreed to pay loss of earnings for 18 February 2020 but no other compensation. The landlord did not offer any specific amount however requested evidence of her loss of earnings This offer was not accepted by the resident.

Policies and processes

The landlord’s Complaints Policy and Procedure states that at stage one, it will provide a response to complaints within 20 working days. In the event that a complaint takes longer than the 20 working days, it will advise of a revised timescale and regularly keep the customer up to date on its progress. At stage two, the landlord will respond to complaints within 20 working days or if it takes longer to resolve, it will keep a customer updated on its progress.
The conditions of the tenancy make clear the landlord must carry out repairs it is responsible for within a reasonable timeframe. The timeframes for repairs stated in its ‘Repairs Guide for Tenants’ dated 2019 (repairs policy) vary depending on urgency, ranging from two hours for emergency repairs to 15 working days for ‘non urgent’ repairs and 60 days for ‘semi planned’ repairs.
The landlord’s Letting Standards set out the condition of the property, fixture sand fittings that the resident can expect when the move in. This includes floorboards and ceilings being “sound” and plasterwork being “generally sound”.
The Guide for landlords: Home (Fitness for Human Habitation) Act 2018 (The Act) sets out criteria for the courts to decide whether a property is fit for human habitation which includes whether there is adequate provision for ventilation.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s handling of repairs which she reported when she moved into the property

The landlord’s records show the resident accepted the property at the viewing on 23 June 2019 and signed the tenancy agreement on 23 July 2019. The landlord has advised the Ombudsman that it has no records of any specific repairs being agreed or requested by the resident at time of the viewing or when signing the tenancy agreement. However, it is evident from the Voids Inspection schedule dated 23 June 2019 that significant works and repairs were identified as required in order for the property to be brought up to a lettable standard. The resident was aware of the outstanding repairs and accepted the property on the understanding these would be completed prior to the start of the tenancy on 29 July 2019.
The landlord carried out multiple works and repairs during the Voids process however it is evident there were a number of issues at the property that still needed addressing when the resident moved in on 29 July 2019. The resident set out the outstanding repairs and issues in her formal complaint to the landlord of 20 August 2019 and subsequent communication of 2 September 2019.
Her concerns included no working vent in the bathroom, a problem with the window not working in the WC, holes in the bathroom and hallway floorboards, bare plasterboard on one kitchen wall and an issue with the front doors closing and a missing weatherboard. It is clear from the landlord’s job history for the property that the window in the WC was repaired with new parts on or around 27 August 2019. It is also evident that the vent in the bathroom was repaired during the same timeframe. Therefore, whilst this indicates a minor delay by the landlord in completing these repairs, they were completed within a month of the resident moving into the property and within a week of the resident raising the repairs with it.
In relation to the hole in the bathroom floorboard underneath the bath, this was addressed by the landlord during the timeframe between 27 September and 2 October 2019 after the contractor’s supervisor attended the property on 27 September 2019 and agreed a plan of action with the resident for the outstanding repairs. In its stage one response, the landlord acknowledged that this issue should have been identified during the void works for which it apologised but confirmed it had now rectified the issue by renewing the flooring. Therefore, this indicates it took the landlord approximately two months, after the resident moved in, to address this issue.
It is evident that during the same timeframe between 27 September and 2 October 2019, the landlord repaired the bedroom radiator. It also renewed the flooring in the WC, the floor under the wash hand basin in the bathroom and a section of the downstairs front room ceiling (directly under the bathroom), as during the course of its repairs it had found damage to these areas that had been caused by historic leaks.
The bath waste was also renewed and reconnected by the landlord during this timeframe which resolved a slow leak which had also been identified. This had followed a leak underneath the bath and waste pipe that the resident had reported to the landlord on 16 September 2019 but had been fixed by the resident’s own plumber. In its stage one response the landlord suggested the source of this leak reported by the resident on 16 September 2019 was her new bath taps that had been fitted. However, in her reply of 19 October 2019, the resident disputed that the taps were the cause of leak, stating it was a missing section of the over floor pipe that her plumber had to install to stop the leak. It is clear that the landlord had carried out work to the bathroom during the Voids process including installing a new bath and so the issue may have derived from these works, however, this is not clear from the available evidence. As the landlord addressed the remaining slow leak from the waste pipe that it identified during its investigations, this was reasonable. Furthermore, the landlord addressed this matter within a reasonable timeframe of the resident reporting it.
In relation to the front doors, it is clear that the landlord had installed new wooden upper and lower front doors during the Voids process however as the resident reported difficulties with opening and closing them in her 2 September 2019 email, the landlord carried out remedial works to both doors in September 2019 which left them operational. The parties’ communications indicate the problem experienced was due to the wood swelling. This is relatively common and can happen as a result of the wood absorbing excess moisture. The landlord responded reasonably by addressing this issue within a reasonable timeframe after reported by the resident once the problem came to light.
On 27 September 2019, the landlord installed a weatherboard to the bottom of the upper front door as the resident had also reported that water was seeping into the property underneath the door. In its stage one response the landlord said this would have only been identified during the Voids process if there had been wet weather conditions; the resident disputed this in her 19 October 2019 reply claiming the lack of a weatherboard did not meet fire safety requirements. An external door is required to have a weatherboard to prevent leaks, moisture and damp and therefore it was reasonable to expect the landlord to have identified this missing part to the door during the Voids process. As such this represents a failure in its service provided.
Furthermore, following its subsequent inspection at the property on 13 November 2019, it identified that the upper front door had “slightly bowed” due to exposure to the weather and needed to be replaced by a UPVC front door. On 5 February 2020, the landlord advised the resident that its contactors were waiting for a quote for this work. It reiterated this in its final response dated 17 February 2020 and reassured the resident that the replacement front door would be provided by 18 March 2020 which was when she had said she was having surgery in hospital. It is clear that the landlord did not install the replacement door by the date given and this repair was subsequently delayed by the Covid-19 restrictions.
The landlord told the resident that it could only carry out emergency repairs during the COVID-19 lockdown and this was in line with government guidance in place at the time. As the existing wooden front door had been left operational by the landlord’s previous repairs, the landlord rightly did not deem this issue to be an emergency. Whilst the resident was understandably unhappy about this further delay, the landlord is not responsible for the lack of progress during COVID-19 restrictions from 23 March 2020 to when they were eased in July 2019. The replacement door was subsequently fitted on 14 July 2020 after the resident chased this matter once restrictions had lifted in July 2020. Therefore, it is clear there was a delay of more than four months by the landlord from when it identified the door needed replacing on 13 November 2020 until 23 March 2020 when restrictions were applied. This timescale exceeded the maximum time of 60 days for repairs given in the landlord’s repair policy. Whilst the landlord explained in its final response that this delay was because there was a breakdown of communication between it and the contractor which meant that this was overlooked, this nonetheless constitutes evidence of the landlord failing to adhere to its repair policy or doing what it said it would.
There were also unreasonable delays by the landlord in providing plasterwork to the kitchen wall and fixing the bathroom rope system window closer:
1. In relation to the kitchen wall, on 2 September 2019 the resident requested plasterwork to one of the kitchen walls which consisted of bare plasterboard. In its stage one response the landlord said it had arranged for a plasterer to attend on 1 November 2019 to carry out this work. Whilst an operative had attended and plastered the kitchen wall on this date, during its inspection on 13 November 2019 the landlord agreed the workmanship was not to an acceptable standard and that further plasterwork in the kitchen was required to remedy this. On 5 February 2020, the landlord confirmed that this work had been booked in for 18 February 2020 and also that it would decorate the kitchen wall upon completion of the plasterwork. A plasterer attended on 18 February 2020 however the plasterwork was not completed at this time because the resident was unhappy that the landlord had sent the same operative whose workmanship it had previously agreed was unacceptable. It is clear from the evidence that the resident had also raised a concern to the landlord at the time about the operative’s behaviour whilst in her home and due to these issues, the landlord had agreed not to send the same operative for future appointments. The landlord’s failure to keep to its promise here constitutes a service shortcoming. However, it is evident that it quickly re-arranged this appointment and a different operative completed the plasterwork on 24 February 2020. Nonetheless, the initial two-month delay from 2 September 2019 until 1 November 2019 by the landlord in completing this work and then the further three months taken to complete the rectification works identified during the inspection on 13 November 2019, was unreasonable and outside of the timescales in its repair policy.

Due to the COVID-19 restrictions that began on 23 March 2020, decoration work to the kitchen wall that had been arranged for 26 March 2020, did not go ahead as planned.

In relation to the bathroom window, after the resident complained on 19 October 2019 about the rope hanging from this window which was part of the system window closer that had been fitted by the landlord, the landlord inspected this on 13 November 2019. It agreed that the bathroom rope system window closer was not operating as it should and would be replaced with a mechanical pole system. On 5 February 2020, the landlord confirmed an operative would attend on 14 February 2020 to replace this. This appointment was then changed to 18 February 2020 however the bathroom operative failed to attend on this date. The reasons for the change in date and then the missed appointment on 18 February 2020, are unclear from the available evidence however it is clear this repair was then caught by the COVID-19 restrictions which commenced on 23 March 2020. The landlord replaced this window on 14 July 2020 after the resident contacted it in early July 2020, reiterated her concerns about the hanging cord and being unable to open the window.

Therefore, the landlord’s delay of more than four months to address the issue after it identified the bathroom window closer was not operating properly, is further evidence of the landlord not following the timescales in its repair policy.

In summary, the landlord endeavoured to complete repairs that the resident had raised with it after moving into the property, however, given the extent of the repairs identified, there were significant delays. Whilst the majority were addressed within three months of the resident moving in and within two months of the resident’s formal complaint, due to ongoing issues experienced with aspects of the property for example with the upper front door, kitchen wall and bathroom window, further repairs by the landlord were necessary. Whilst these were promised, the landlord did not address these repairs within a reasonable timeframe because of a breakdown in communication with its contractors. Furthermore, it is clear that certain repairs, including holes in the floorboards, should have been completed prior to the resident moving in in order to meet the landlord’s Letting Standards which required floorboards to be “sound”. The weatherboard to the front door should also have been in place at the start of the tenancy.
Whilst residents are expected to allow the landlord access for repairs indicating some inconvenience is expected, in this case, due to the number of repairs that were outstanding at the start of the tenancy and due to ongoing issues with some repairs that required further attention or rectification works, it is clear the resident was caused greater inconvenience than could have been reasonably expected. It is clear:
1. The resident had to spend multiple days at home to facilitate visits. This included from 27 September 2019 to 2 October 2019 when the landlord carried out a series of repairs. On balance, the amount of time the resident spent accommodating the landlord was unreasonable and the Ombudsman acknowledges that the resident had to take time off work as a result.
2. An additional visit on 18 February 2020 was necessary to complete the plasterwork due to the original workmanship being deemed below standard. However, due to the landlord sending the same operative in error, the resident had to accommodate the landlord on a further occasion on 24 February 2020 to allow completion of this work. Furthermore, the landlord accepted its window operative missed the appointment made for 18 February 2020 meaning arrangements made by the resident to be at home in order to provide access for these visits on 18 February 2020, was to no avail.
3. After her formal complaint on 20 August 2019, the resident spent significant time in communication with the landlord over the next seven months chasing up the repairs until restrictions commenced in March 2020. Due to the landlord not contacting the resident to arrange repairs when agreed for example on 23 October 2019 and gaps in the landlord’s communication for example after its inspection on 13 November 2019 when its findings were not followed up, the resident had to spend a disproportionate amount of time contacting the landlord in pursuit of a resolution to the ongoing issues. In its stage two final response, the landlord apologised for the lack of follow up with repairs after the 13 November 2019 inspection and acknowledged that it took for the resident to request escalation to stage two of its complaints procedure in order to progress these. It said that its service provided had fallen below the expected standard.
4. The resident had also made the landlord aware throughout the repairs and complaints procedure that she had an ongoing health condition and had been attending hospital appointments for treatment. The Ombudsman acknowledges this compounded the ongoing matter of repairs that the resident was dealing with.
During the complaints process, the resident requested compensation for inconvenience caused by the delays with the repairs. In the resident’s 19 October 2019 email to the landlord, she also mentioned damage to “walls and floors” caused by the leak from the bathroom waste pipe. Further, in her 4 November 2019 email the resident said that the front door leak had created an uneven floor and swelling to the lino and reiterated that the leak from the bathroom had caused damage to the front room floor. The landlord did not address the resident’s request for compensation for delayed repairs in its complaints responses or her requests in respect to damage to flooring.
Taking into account the significant impact the delays with repairs had on the resident, particularly the unreasonable timeframe taken by the landlord to fully resolve the issues and time spent by the resident providing access and chasing the landlord to address all of the repairs, the landlord shall pay the resident £500 in compensation. This is in accordance with the Ombudsman own Remedies Guidance, which refers to awards of £250 to £700 for instances of considerable service failure or maladministration which have had a considerable impact, for instance: where there has been a failure over a considerable period of time to act in accordance with policy – for example to address repairs or; where a resident has to repeatedly chase responses and seek correction of mistakes, necessitating unreasonable level of involvement by that complainant.
During the Ombudsman’s mediation process, the resident reiterated her request for compensation to resolve damage caused to flooring by the leak from the bathroom and as a result of water leaking through the front door. It is acknowledged that the landlord did not agree to pay compensation for damage to flooring as it said it responded to these issues within a reasonable timescale and the resident did not advise of any damage at the time. In relation to a claim for damage to home contents such as this, usually the resident makes a claim either via their own home contents insurance or alternatively via the landlord’s insurer’s. As there is no evidence of the landlord providing the resident with details of its insurer’s or its process to make a claim in respect to water damage caused to the flooring of the property, I have made an order below in recognition of this.
During the Ombudsman’s mediation process, the landlord offered to pay the resident for her loss of earnings for 18 February 2020. It said rectification works to the previous plastering work should have been completed in one appointment and that it was responsible for the need for the second appointment on 24 February 2020 due to sending the same plasterer; something it had agreed it would not do. The landlord asked the resident to provide written evidence from her employer that she took the day off as unpaid leave, the hours she would have worked and her net pay per hour. This was a reasonable offer made on a goodwill basis, therefore I have added an appropriate order below to reflect this.
In relation to the resident’s request for reimbursement of the cost of painting the kitchen wall, once restrictions had eased, it is evident that the landlord had offered the resident appointments for its decorators to carry out this work to the resident’s kitchen wall in August 2020. It had also advised the resident that it would not reimburse her for the cost if she proceeded with appointing her own decorator. Therefore, in these circumstances, the landlord would not be responsible for reimbursing the resident this cost.

Complaint handling

The landlord’s complaints procedure stipulates a 20-working day timeframe for it to respond to complaints at stages one and two. Following the resident raising a formal complaint on 20 August 2019, it provided a stage one response on 18 October 2020. This indicates the landlord did not follow its own timescale when responding to the resident’s stage one complaint.
Whilst the resident initially requested escalation to stage two on 19 October 2019, it was subsequently agreed between the parties that the landlord would complete repairs before issuing its stage two response. When the resident requested escalation to stage two on 20 January 2020, the landlord issued its stage two response on 17 February 2020. As this was within 20 working days, this shows it acted in accordance with the timescale in this instance.
In its stage one response the landlord addressed most of the issues raised by the resident in her formal complaint and 2 September 2019 email, including those repairs that it did not have responsibility for, for example strip lighting in the kitchen and a double kitchen unit. However, the landlord did not address all of the issues raised, for example, it did not refer in its responses to the resident’s reports of:
1. a hole in the first floor hallway floor under the radiator;
2. the previous tenant’s satellite dish and associated cabling left at the property- this was reported on at least three occasions by the resident during the complaints procedure but there is no evidence of the landlord replying;
3. the lack of ventilation in the bathroom and WC due to issues with the vent and window respectively. It is noted that the landlord had already taken steps to address the issues raised regarding the lack of ventilation in the bathroom and faulty WC window by the date of its stage one response but it did not refer to these issues in its response, except to say it had relocated the cord hanging from the WC window which the resident had also raised a concern about;
4. the drain blockage outside of the property. The landlord’s contractor had unblocked the drain on 10 September 2019 but no mention was made of this in its responses.
5. the resident’s query about three weeks rent she was charged for her former property after accepting the property. The resident confirmed to the Ombudsman in September 2020 that she had still not received a response from the landlord about this. Therefore, a recommendation for the landlord to respond to the resident’s query has been included below.
As such its initial delay in providing a response to the resident’s stage one complaint and its failure to respond to all of the issues raised indicates that the landlord did not handle the resident’s complaint in accordance with its complaints procedure or in a sufficiently thorough manner meaning there was unclarity around some repairs which meant the resident had to keep re-raising. The landlord shall therefore pay the resident an additional £75 in compensation for the distress and inconvenience caused due to failings in its service whilst handling her complaint.
The Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code) requires that landlords provide a stage one response within ten working days from a receipt of a complaint or, if this is not possible, give an explanation and a date for when to expect its response; this should not be more than a further ten working days. The Code also requires that a landlord’s complaints procedure reflects this timeframe for stage one complaint responses. In this case, it took the landlord nearly two months to issue its stage one response and its complaints procedure included a 20-working day response time at stage one. Therefore, due to these issues, it is clear that its handling of the complaint would not have met these standards set in the Code. However, it is acknowledged that the landlord’s complaint responses in this case pre-date the publication of the Code (July 2020).

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord when handling repairs which the resident reported when she moved into the property.
In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Scheme, there was service failure by the landlord when handling the resident’s complaints.

Reasons

Due to the extent of the repairs identified, there were significant delays by the landlord in addressing the repairs. Some repairs should have been completed by the landlord during the Voids process and the landlord is obliged to ensure it meets its relevant legal obligations when letting a property. Whilst the landlord completed the majority of repairs within two to three months, some issues remained unresolved for an extended period of time resulting in the resident having to regularly contact landlord to chase up the repairs, causing significant inconvenience.
The landlord’s stage one complaint response was not issued within the timeframe set out in its complaints procedure and it failed to respond to all of the issues raised by the resident during the complaints procedure.

Orders and recommendations

The Ombudsman orders the landlord to:
1. pay the resident £575 in total compensation;
2. comply with the above order within four weeks;
3. provide the resident with details of its insurer’s and the process to make a claim in case she wants to pursue this in respect to water damage caused to the flooring of the property and;
4. renew its offer to pay the resident for her loss of earnings for 18 February 2020 which was on the basis that the resident provides it with written evidence from her employer that she took the day off as unpaid leave, the hours she would have worked and her net pay per hour.
The Ombudsman recommends that the landlord:
1. If it has not already done so, respond to the resident’s query regarding being charged for three weeks’ rent on her old property after accepting the new property.