Croydon Council (202006659)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202006659

Croydon Council

23 February 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

This complaint is about:
1. The resident’s request to be rehoused;
2. The landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns around the condition of the property;
3. The landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns around rent arrears;
4. The landlord’s complaint handling.

Jurisdiction

What we can and cannot consider is called the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. This is governed by the Housing Ombudsman Scheme. When a complaint is brought to the Ombudsman, we must consider all the circumstances of the case as there are sometimes reasons why a complaint will not be investigated.
After carefully considering all the evidence, in accordance with paragraph 39(m) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the following aspect of the complaint is outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.
1. Rehousing request
Paragraph 39(m) of the Scheme says the Ombudsman will not investigate complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, “fall properly within the jurisdiction of another ombudsman, regulator or complaint-handling body.”
The resident has asked to be rehoused on a number of grounds including: the property’s unsuitability for her personal circumstances (given her vulnerabilities), alleged disrepair issues and a noise dispute with her upstairs neighbours. She has said the overall situation is impacting her health and wellbeing, which is the basis of her request. The landlord previously agreed to arrange a management transfer to an alternative property. The resident has said she should also be allowed to use the landlord’s bidding process to ensure a new property is sourced as soon as possible.
Part 6 of the Housing Act (1996) includes transfers requested by local authority residents. It sets out the circumstances where reasonable preference must be given to certain applicants, when making decisions about offers of property. The reasonable preference criteria include applicants who require a move on medical or welfare grounds.
The Housing Ombudsman can only consider complaints about transfer applications that are outside of Part 6 of the Housing Act (1996). The Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman can review complaints about applications for rehousing that fall under Part 6. This includes complaints concerning applications for re housing that meet the reasonable preference criteria and the assessment of such applications.
In this case, the landlord is the resident’s local authority. Since her transfer request falls within Part 6 of the Housing Act 1996. It cannot be reviewed by the Housing Ombudsman. As a result, this aspect of the complaint is better suited to the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman. The Housing Ombudsman can consider the remaining concerns listed above.

Background and summary of events

Background

The resident is a secure tenant, and the tenancy began on 10 January 2020. The property is a one-bedroom ground floor flat.
The landlord’s repairs guide details how repairs are prioritised. It shows urgent repairs have a 24-hour target response timescale, non-urgent repairs have a 15 working day timescale and semi–planned repairs have a 60 working day timescale.
Non-urgent repairs are defined as small simple repairs that are needed to prevent serious inconvenience and keep a property in a reasonable condition. Semi–planned repairs are mostly larger non urgent repairs necessary to keep a property in reasonable condition.
The repairs guide shows residents are responsible for various internal repairs including replacing individual kitchen cupboards, minor repairs to plaster, repairs to minor cracks in ceilings, replacing toilet seats and tiling to walls in kitchens and bathrooms.
However, residents who are over 70 or registered disabled can apply for a concessionary repairs scheme. Under the scheme the landlord will complete the repairs described above on a resident’s behalf. A letter confirming a resident receives a Personal Independence Payment (PIP) is an acceptable form of evidence to support an application to join the scheme.
The landlord has provided the resident’s account history for two properties. The first history relates to her current property and runs from 20 January 2020 until
9 August 2021. It shows account arrears of £1910.95. The second history relates to her previous property. It runs from 7 April 2003 until 26 January 2020. It shows account arrears of £518.38.
The landlord’s rent recovery procedure shows it can take legal action in the event of significant rent arrears. This action can include seeking possession of a property.
The landlord operates a two stage complaints procedure. Its relevant policy document shows it should respond to complaints within 20 working days at both stages. Where a full response cannot be provided in this timescale, the complainant should be notified immediately and given a revised timescale.
The resident has a number of vulnerabilities relating to her physical and mental health for which she takes medication. From the information seen, it is unclear whether the landlord was fully aware of the resident’s circumstances from the outset of the events below.

Summary of events

The landlord’s account notes show the resident reported a problem with her electric shower unit on 28 January 2020. They record the resident said the ‘box had fallen off the wall’ while she was in the shower and the incident could have caused serious harm. Further, the resident had been advised the landlord would not repair the unit, or a rotting cupboard under the kitchen sink. From the landlord’s later correspondence, the shower incident may have occurred on 25 January 2020.
The account notes show the landlord attended the property the following day. Further, during this visit, the resident reported the following issues as needing repair: holes inside utility cupboard; missing and broken tiles underneath the boiler; gaps under all base unit cupboards; holes around pipes in at the top section of the bedroom wall; uneven kitchen window seal; water damage to an under-sink kitchen unit; dents on bathroom door; broken toilet seat; holes above bathroom door and a malfunctioning thermostat. They show the landlord recommended an inspection to assess the issues. The landlord’s later correspondence shows the shower unit was replaced the same day.
On 8 February 2020 the landlord contacted the resident to offer support. The account notes show this was with a view to sustaining her tenancy. It said the resident could ask the landlord for assistance if she felt she needed help.
The landlord wrote to the resident about rent arrears of £323.61 on 10 February 2020.
The landlord’s sustainment representative visited the resident on 19 February 2020. The account notes show they reported “very minor imperfections in the property that should be (the) tenant’s responsibility to address”. However, the resident was extremely anxious about issues such as a tiny crack in the door or unboxed pipework. Further, the resident received a PIP due to mental health issues and her mother was applying for Carer’s Allowance. The representative recommended the landlord should determine what, if any, repairs should be completed.
Account notes from 25 March 2020 show the resident notified the landlord there would be a shortfall in her rent payment. This was on the basis she had been travelling by taxi during the pandemic to avoid infection. They show the resident reported this was due to her obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD).
The resident’s housing transfer application form was dated 24 May 2020. It shows the resident was receiving a PIP in addition to Universal Credit. It also shows she reported disabilities relating to limited mobility and mental health issues.
The landlord wrote to the resident about rent arrears of £1986.33 on 29 June 2020. It said the debt should be paid in full to avoid a notice of seeking possession.
The resident raised concerns around the property’s condition with the Ombudsman on 5 October 2020. She said the property was in disrepair and the landlord had failed to act on a list of issues. These included rising damp, exposed pipework, pest infestation and sewage filling her washing machine. She said she wanted the repairs to be completed or to be rehoused.
The Ombudsman notified the landlord of the complaint on 12 October 2020. It contacted the resident the same day to gather information about her complaint. It said there were no records to show the resident had raised her concerns through the landlord’s formal complaints procedure.
The resident replied to the landlord the same day. She said she was living in appalling conditions due to various disrepair issues and that she had previously logged a stage one complaint which should be escalated. The landlord should provide a suitable property based on her disability and mental health needs. Additionally, daily compensation should be awarded until the resident was rehoused. Since her health was deteriorating daily, this should be the subject of separate compensation. Finally, the resident should be allowed to bid for housing online as an agreed management transfer was taking too long to locate a property.
Account notes from 20 October 2020 show the resident contacted the landlord for clarification about her rent arrears. In response, the landlord agreed to provide a statement showing the accumulation of arrears. The notes show a regular payment of £50 towards the arrears was due to begin on 18 November 2020.
The landlord’s internal correspondence from 22 December 2020 shows the resident had chased its complaint response through the Ombudsman. It also shows a formal complaint had not been raised at this point. This was around ten weeks after the Ombudsman’s initial contact with the landlord.
The landlord issued a stage one complaint response on 22 February 2021. This was more than four months after the initial contact from the Ombudsman. It said the complaint was logged on 22 December 2020. An apology was offered for the delay in responding. The timeline shows it took around five weeks, after the complaint was raised, for the landlord to issue its response. The main points were:
1. The resident reported exposed wires on the property’s electric shower unit on 25 January 2020. The landlord inspected the unit and found it was beyond repair having been deliberately broken. A replacement unit was installed on 29 January 2020.
2. The landlord had received no reports of sewage leaking into the resident’s washing machine. The property’s drains were checked on 26 February 2020 and found to be free flowing. An appointment was scheduled to investigate sewage odour on 19 March 2020 but was postponed at the resident’s request. A new appointment was suspended due to the pandemic but eventually took place 6 August 2020. The landlord was unable to gain access and advised the resident to re–book the appointment. Its records showed the resident had not raised the issue again.
3. The landlord had not received any reports of damp at the property or holes in the walls. Its repairs inspector had not been in contact with the resident since the property was inspected in March 2020. Any new repair issues should be reported to the landlord.
4. Following the inspection in March 2020, the landlord had completed sound proofing works to the resident’s bedroom on 11 June 2020. It confirmed there were no repair issues related to pest control on 6 March 2020.
5. A double kitchen wall unit was installed on 4 December 2020 after an initial appointment in May 2020 was cancelled due to lockdown measures. The landlord was unable to gain access for the installation on 3 December 2020. An appointment to box exposed pipework was rearranged for 24 March 2021 after a vehicle breakdown preventing the landlord’s engineer from attending on 18 December 2020.
6. Appointments had been arranged to re-skim and mist coat the property’s kitchen ceiling on 18 and 19 February 2021. Initial appointments in May 2020 were also cancelled due to the pandemic. The resident had refused access for the works in October 2020 because she wasn’t well. The landlord failed to gain access again on 21 and 22 December 2020.
7. The landlord was unable to complete the scheduled works sooner but would contact the resident if the situation changed. However, most of the repairs were either completed or scheduled.
8. As a result, the landlord rejected the resident’s complaint and declined to offer any compensation.
On 23 February 2021, the resident told the Ombudsman she disagreed with the landlord’s stage one response. This was on the basis she did not break the shower and she had a surveyor’s report confirming rising damp at the property. Further, she made overpayments to a rent account connected with her previous accommodation with the landlord. These should be used to offset her current rent arrears. The Ombudsman notified the landlord of the resident’s escalation request the following day.
The landlord issued its stage two response on 11 March 2021. The main points were:
1. The landlord took pictures when it attended the resident’s shower unit on
  25 January 2020. The inspecting electrician reported the unit’s cover was broken and exposed wires were tampered with. The resident’s concerns about the shower were raised five days after she moved in. The cover should not have been removed even if the shower was not working. A picture of the damage was included in the final response letter. Images of the unit taken when the property was void were also included for comparative purposes.
2. While the resident had referenced a surveyor’s report confirming rising damp, the landlord had not been given a copy. It had requested the report in writing on 3 March 2021. Without the report the landlord would be unable to investigate the matter any further.
3. The outstanding balance of the resident’s rent account was £1919.12. Her comments around overpayments to previous account were investigated. The investigation found there was also an outstanding balance of £518.38 on this account. The landlord was entitled to serve notice in respect of rent arrears given the resident had not kept to an agreement to pay £50 per month towards her arrears balance.
The resident contacted the Ombudsman on 7 May 2021. The call notes show she was unhappy with the landlord’s stage two response and was seeking to be moved out of the property. No rationale for the resident’s disagreement was provided.

Assessment and findings

It is recognised the resident is dealing with several difficult personal circumstances. It is also understood she would prefer to move to alternative accommodation. For the reasons given above, this assessment focussed on the resident’s concerns around the condition of the property. It may help to explain that, though this service is an alternative to the courts, the Ombudsman is unable to make findings under the Equalities Act (2010) or otherwise. Nor can it establish liability or award damages.
A significant portion of the assessment was based on a timeline set out in the landlord’s complaint responses. It is noted the resident has not disputed the events detailed in landlord’s timeline.

The landlord’s response to reports about the property’s condition

The resident’s initial reports, from the landlord’s account notes on 29 January 2020, were considered in conjunction with the landlord’s repairs guide. From this comparison, a number of the issues raised seemed to fall within the resident’s responsibility to repair. For example, the damaged kitchen cupboard underneath the sink, the tiling and the toilet seat. It was noted there was no mention of rising damp at this time. Further, no evidence was seen to show the landlord identified any significant repair issues at this point.
Having considered the reported repairs, this assessment originally found they could not be easily classified according to the landlord’s response categories. However, the account notes confirm the landlord was aware the resident received a PIP from 19 February 2019. From this point, based on the details of the landlord’s concessionary repairs scheme, the assessment found some of the repairs were likely to have fallen into the non-urgent repairs category to be completed within 15 working days. For example, the toilet seat or the damaged kitchen cupboard could reasonably fit this definition.
This is because of the potential for repairs of this type to cause the resident inconvenience, or anxiety, based on her personal circumstances. It is reasonable to conclude the landlord’s supporting representative could have sought clarity around the resident’s condition during the visit. Further, they could have signposted her to the concession scheme. The evidence seen suggests she would have qualified for it. It is noted an inspection was again recommended as a result of the second visit. The timeline therefore suggests the landlord’s recommendation from January 2020 was not followed. This represents an avoidable delay of around 15 working days.
The landlord’s timeline shows the property was ultimately inspected in March 2020. Since pest control investigation works were arranged as a result of the inspection, and completed on 6 March 2020, it must have taken place between
1 and 5 March 2020. This was up to 26 working days after the landlord’s initial visit on 29 January 2020. There were 12 working days between 5 March 2020 and the announcement of the first national lockdown on 23 March 2020. This shows some reported repairs could have been completed prior to the introduction of restrictions. However, it was noted the timeline suggests the landlord responded promptly to the resident’s concerns around pest infestation and the reported smell of sewage. The information seen suggests the resident’s pest concerns centred on insects at the property.
The landlord’s timeline confirms its operations were impacted by the pandemic given appointments were cancelled due to restrictions. Further, the resident failed to facilitate access for repair works on several occasions. However, it also shows some of the repairs arranged following the March 2020 inspection were unreasonably delayed. For example, most national lockdown restrictions were lifted on 4 July 2020. However, it took 80 working days for the landlord to attempt plastering works to address the kitchen ceiling. This was 20 working days outside of the landlord’s semi-planned repairs timescale. The landlord’s timeline shows it was undertaking works prior to 4 July 2020. This is because sound proofing works were completed on 11 June 2020. The landlord should have been fully aware of the resident’s vulnerabilities from at least 24 May 2020 based on the wording of her transfer application form.
Of the issues raised by the resident, this assessment found her concerns around the shower unit, rising damp and backfilling sewage to be the most serious. In relation to the shower unit, the landlord’s stage two complaint response contained a number of images from before and after the damage. Based on both the images and the landlord’s timeline, this assessment found the unit’s cover was unlikely to have fallen off as the result of a defect. It was also noted the landlord responded promptly to the repair.
In relation to the other more serious issues, no evidence has been seen to show the resident reported either damp and mould, or backfilling sewage. Consequently, from the information seen, it cannot fairly be said that the landlord failed to respond to known issues. The Ombudsman has not seen a surveyor’s report confirming rising damp at the property. Nor was any evidence seen to show the issue was identified during the March 2020 inspection. The landlord’s timeline shows reasonable efforts were made to respond to the resident’s concerns around the smell of sewage.
Overall, based on the information seen, this assessment identified avoidable delays in respect of the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about the condition of the property. These delays amounted to around one month in total having accounted for various pandemic restrictions. Further, it found the landlord could have signposted the resident towards its concessionary repairs scheme, which she may have been eligible for, and able to evidence, based on her PIP payment. An understanding of the effects of resident’s condition would have allowed the landlord to prioritise repairs accordingly. This assessment therefore found service failure on the part of the landlord given the above identified delays and failures.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns around rent arrears

The Ombudsman is unaware of any specific concerns the resident has raised in relation to arrears. However, she disputed being in arrears when the complaint was escalated. She also told the Ombudsman she disagreed with the landlord’s final response. On that basis, this assessment considered the matter to ensure the information the resident was given about the arrears was correct. Based on the landlord’s account statements, the assessment found it was entitled to refer to the measures set out in its procedure document.
This assessment found there was no maladministration on the part of the landlord in respect of the resident’s concerns around rent arrears. The evidence confirms the resident was given appropriate information about arrears during the timeline. There is no information to show the resident was not provided the account statements as agreed by the landlord in October 2020.

The landlord’s complaint handling

In relation to the landlord’s complaint handling, the timeline shows it took more than four months for the landlord to issue a stage one response following the Ombudsman’s intervention. Based on the timeline in the response, it is unlikely this delay caused subsequent delays to repair works. This is because the landlord’s timeline shows plastering, due to take place in May 2020, was scheduled for October 2020 regardless of the landlord’s failure to raise a formal complaint at this time. It is also noted the resident’s transfer application was completed and approved at this point.
Nevertheless, this timescale was inappropriate and ultimately a resolution to the resident’s complaint was delayed as a result. The landlord’s internal correspondence suggests the delay occurred because the landlord failed to raise a formal complaint in October 2020. No information was seen to show the resident’s complaint was formally acknowledged or that she was given a revised timescale. The timeline confirms the landlord’s failure to respond ultimately prompted the resident to chase its progress through the Ombudsman. It is reasonable to conclude this was inconvenient.
Given the above, this assessment found there was maladministration on the part of the landlord in respect of its complaint handling. However, no evidence was seen to show the resident raised a formal complaint, about the same issues, prior to October 2020.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was service failure on the part of the landlord in respect of its response to the resident’s concerns around the condition of the property.
In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration in respect of the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns around rent arrears.
In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration in respect of the landlord’s complaint handling.

Reasons

The assessment found repair works were subject to an avoidable delay of around one month in total. It also found the resident could have been signposted to the landlord’s concessionary repairs scheme based on her PIP.
The evidence shows the resident was given appropriate information about rent arrears during the timeline.
It took more than four months for the landlord to issue a stage one response. The evidence shows this delay occurred because it failed to log the resident’s complaint formally following contact by the Ombudsman. As a result, the resident had to chase the landlord’s response.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

The Ombudsman orders the landlord to pay the resident a total of £250 in compensation within four weeks comprising:
1. £150 to address any distress and inconvenience caused to the resident by the above identified delays and failures in respect of the landlord’s response to her reported concerns about the condition of the property.
2. £100 to address any distress and inconvenience caused by the above identified delay in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Recommendations

The landlord to take steps to ensure it understands how vulnerable residents are affected by their conditions. This is with a view to ensuring issues are prioritised accordingly.
The landlord to ensure formal complaints are logged promptly following receipt. This is to ensure cases are investigated accordingly and not forgotten.
The landlord should provide evidence of compliance with the above order and confirm it intentions with regards to the recommendations within four weeks of the date of this report.