East Devon District Council (202231306)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202231306

East Devon District Council

26 September 2024

Our approach

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

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

The complaint

The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of various repairs to the property.
The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s knowledge and information management.

Background

The resident is a tenant of the landlord, a local council. The property is a 3-bedroom terraced house. The resident was assigned the property via mutual exchange in August 2011. She lives at the property with her 2-children.
The resident told this Service her son has physical vulnerabilities. The landlord has no vulnerabilities recorded on its information systems.
On 17 November 2022 the resident complained to the landlord by email. She said the following:
1. The rear door to the property needed repair as it was not functioning.
2. There was cold and draught coming through the windows and the ventilation system was inadequate.
3. A leak coming through the roof or the chimney caused the ceiling to collapse. The landlord had taken no action to repair the ceiling. She was unhappy that the landlord sent a plumber instead of a contractor to fix the leak after reporting the emergency repair.
4. The resident’s son has physical vulnerabilities, as well as breathing difficulties and needed warmth in the property.
The landlord sent its stage 1 complaint response on 15 December 2022. It apologised for any confusion caused when a plumber attended to repair the leak in the property stemming from the chimney. Although it noted a temporary repair was carried out. It also said that vents were going to be overhauled and then it would repair the ceiling. It said the door was repaired on 22 November 2022, but to let it know if she was having issues.
The resident escalated her complaint on 22 December 2022. She remained unhappy that the landlord’s contractors had only made a temporary repair to the rear door. She had previously been told that the ventilation would be overhauled on this day, but it had not happened. She doubted that the ceiling would be repaired on 23 December 2022. She said she would contact her local MP and environmental health.
On 10 February 2023 the landlord issued its stage 2 complaint response to the resident. It apologised that repairs in the property had not become completed or completed satisfactorily. It also acknowledged that contractors had not kept to the appointments scheduled. It provided target dates to the resident in respect of the various repairs, all to be completed by 9 March 2023.
The resident referred her complaint to this Service on 9 March 2023. She wanted her complaint investigated as she remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s response. She told this Service by email on 13 March 2023 that the issues were still ongoing. She added that her property was affected by damp and mould. She wanted all the repairs to be completed, to be compensated for damages, loss of earnings and help towards utility bills.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

Paragraph 42.a. of the Scheme says the Ombudsman may not consider complaints that are made prior to having exhausted a landlord’s complaints procedure, unless there is evidence of a complaint-handling failure.
The resident had told this Service on 9 March 2023 that she had experienced damp and mould in the property. However, this was not communicated to the landlord in her complaint or complaint escalation. As the resident had not included it in her initial complaint prior to receiving the landlord’s stage 1 complaint response, she had not exhausted the landlord’s internal complaints procedure regarding any damp and mould issues she has experienced.
Therefore, in the interest of fairness, the scope of this investigation is limited to the issues raised during the resident’s formal complaint. The landlord needs to be given a fair opportunity to investigate and respond to any reported dissatisfaction with its actions prior to the involvement of this Service. Any new issues that have not been subject to a formal complaint can be addressed directly with the landlord and progressed as a new formal complaint if required. Therefore, this Service will not comment on the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns of damp and mould in the property. However, we will consider reports of various repairs required in her initial complaint of November 2022.
Paragraph 42.c. of the Scheme states that the Ombudsman may not consider complaints which were not brought to the attention of the landlord as a formal complaint within a reasonable period. This would usually be 12 months from the matters arising.
The resident first complained to the landlord on 17 November 2022. Therefore, the scope of this investigation will consider evidence of issues raised from 12 months before this date. Issues prior to this will not form part of this investigation as they are historical issues, which were not put to the landlord as a formal complaint. Ultimately, residents are expected to raise complaints with their landlords in a timely manner so that the landlord has a reasonable opportunity to consider the issues whilst they are still live, and while the evidence is available to reach an informed conclusion on the events that occurred.
Further, it is noted the resident said that due to the repairs not being carried out, her son’s physical health was affected. The Ombudsman does not doubt the resident’s concerns about her household’s health, but this Service is unable to draw conclusions on the causation of, or liability for, effects on health and wellbeing. Therefore, we cannot confirm the effect of the landlord’s actions or inaction on health, and she may wish to seek independent advice if she wishes to pursue this aspect of her complaint. However, this Service will consider the landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns and any distress, and inconvenience caused.
The resident told this Service that she wants to be compensated for loss of earnings and damages. Negligence is a legal matter to be decided by the courts and residents are expected to make a claim to their insurer in such cases, alternatively, they may make a claim to the landlord’s insurer, who would consider whether the landlord is liable for the damaged items. The resident may wish to seek independent advice about insurance or pursuing aspects of the complaint through the courts.
Additionally, there is no evidence this information about damage to personal belongings was shared to the landlord by the resident. As such, the landlord would not have known to communicate details on how to claim to her.

Handling of various repairs

When investigating a complaint, the Ombudsman applies its dispute resolution principles. The principles of effective dispute resolution are:
1. Be fair, treat people fairly and follow fair processes.
2. Put things right.
3. Learn from outcomes.
Section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 places statutory obligations on the landlord. The landlord is to keep the structure and exterior of the property in repair. This is echoed within the tenancy agreement. The landlord also has a responsibility under the Housing Health and Safety Rating System, to assess hazards and risks within its rented properties. Excess cold is a potential hazard. Therefore, the landlord is required to consider whether any cold and draught problems in its properties amount to a hazard and require remedying.
The landlord operates a repairs policy. For emergency repairs it says it will attend and either complete or make safe within 4 hours. Routine repairs have a suggested completion timeframe of 30 calendar days.
The resident’s initial complaint was submitted to the landlord by email on 17 November 2022. Prior to this, there is no tangible evidence sent by either party regarding repairs raised. However, it is clear from 17 November 2022 that the landlord was put on notice of the resident’s concerns. The landlord apologised to the resident on 15 December 2022 that she had to contact it on multiple occasions regarding repairs. It provided feedback to its teams regarding this, which was reasonable and demonstrated learning.
In the landlord’s stage 1 complaint response, it commented that a plumber was sent instead of a contractor to resolve the leak from the chimney. The landlord apologised for the confusion, and a temporary repair was carried out at the time. From the evidence available, the landlord responded to this as an emergency, but the date of attendance is unknown to this Service. The resident said she was waiting for 6 hours; this is outside the 4-hour timescale set in the landlord’s repairs policy. Albeit a short delay, considering the emergency nature of the repair is inappropriate.
The chimney flashing was renewed on 16 February 2023, which was inside the target time set by the landlord of 9 March 2023. There is evidence that the landlord was still waiting for its team’s approval to carry out the works as 31 January 2023. The landlord said that the resident felt the chimney was the causing the leak into the loft of the property but said that its contractors did not think this was the case. Although it is reasonable for the landlord to rely on professional opinion, there is no evidence that it clearly communicated to the resident the status of the chimney flashing repair, and its contractor’s assessment of the cause of the leak.
At the outset of the resident’s complaint on 17 November 2022, she told the landlord that the ceiling had been damaged. The landlord also said in its stage 1 complaint response that the ventilation was going to be overhauled, and then the ceiling would be repaired. The target date set by the landlord to repair both the ventilation and ceiling was 9 March 2023. The ventilation was overhauled on 16 April 2024 which was 110 calendar days since the resident’s complaint, and 33 calendar days over the target time. It was not until 11 May 2023 that the ceiling had been repaired. This meant 113 calendar days had elapsed since the resident’s complaint, and it was 63 calendar days over the target time it set. Despite the landlord saying it could not repair the ceiling until after the ventilation unit, the time taken to repair both the ceiling and ventilation was inappropriate.
From the evidence provided, a repair to the rear door of the property was made on 22 November 2022. The resident was not happy with the quality of repairs and said that this was only a temporary solution. This then led to further inconvenience to the resident as the ability to make a right first-time repair was missed. The landlord arranged another repair to the door, plastering, and door frame, which on its system was marked as completed on 20 February 2023. On the same day, the windows were repaired, within the target time. However, the target date for completion set by the landlord was 8 February 2023 for the door frame. This meant that the landlord was outside its target time by 12 calendar days to complete the door frame, which was not appropriate.
There is no evidence that the landlord communicated clearly to the resident about what steps it had taken to try and resolve the door issue, as the resident told this Service on 13 March 2023 that the back door does not shut or lock properly. However, the landlord sent a surveyor to the property on 23 March 2023 and confirmed to the resident that these works had been completed. It was reasonable of the landlord to rely on professional opinion.
Despite the above attendance by the landlord’s surveyor, there is conflicting information sent to us from the landlord. In its email to the resident on 23 March 2023, it noted the resident had refused access regarding a repair to the door, and that she wanted a replacement door instead. It told this Service that this was on 1 occasion but did not specify the date when access was refused by the resident. There is also an internal email of 15 June 2023 that says all works were completed, other than the door. Although the resident has not disputed that the repairs to the door were completed since 13 March 2023, due to it being unclear, an order has been made in this regard, to inspect and confirm that the door is functioning, and locking properly.
The landlord’s records reflect that the roof tiles to the property were to be completed by 9 February 2023. The repairs were not completed until 24 January 2024. This meant over 11 months had passed since its original target date. This delay was inappropriate and no reasonings have been provided to this Service as to why these delays occurred.
Regarding the cold experienced by the resident, the landlord did not organise an environment survey until 2 March 2023. It had set a target date for 7 March 2023. A copy of the findings from this environment survey has not been sent to the Ombudsman. The resident told this Service she experienced increased energy bills, to counteract the cold by turning on the heating more frequently.
is unclear whether any of the landlord’s actions and repairs were undertaken because of the findings from the environment survey. Despite this, it is the Ombudsman’s opinion that the landlord should have acted sooner in organising an environment survey. The resident told the landlord about the condition of the property and about her concerns for her vulnerable child’s health, and that it was causing her distress. It was unreasonable to have exceeded 30 calendar days to visit the property to conduct an environment survey, this was a failing.
Additionally, there is no evidence the landlord completed a risk assessment. The landlord ought to have known of household vulnerabilities, the resident mentioned her son’s circumstances in her complaint of November 2022. Before the target dates for repairs were set, this Service would have expected to see the landlord’s clear decision making regarding the risk to the resident. It should have assessed the risk of continuous living at the property for any period of time. The ongoing risk assessment ought to have taken into account any household vulnerabilities and considered interim mitigations such as:
1. temporary decant
2. temporary heating
3. any other support the landlord could have provided.
Overall, the landlord was not proactive in communicating with the resident and did not complete repairs in line with its policies. It failed to identify and manage the risk and identify appropriate interventions at the earliest opportunity. From the evidence sent to this Service, it is unclear why the target dates the landlord set were all beyond 30-calendar days since the resident’s complaint of 17 November 2022. The landlord told the resident in its final response of 10 February 2023 that it and its contractors were busy, which is an unreasonable response. Aside from this, unreasonably the landlord had not provided any justification for the target date.
The landlord’s final response also acknowledged that the resident had experienced missed appointments by its contractors. The resident said she had 6 appointments cancelled by them. The landlord said it recognised the frustration and disappointment caused and apologised for this. It also reiterated target dates for completion of work, however it failed to identify any other learning which was unreasonable. Further, it failed to consider compensation for any detriment caused. It needed to have taken more ownership of its failures identified. Therefore, it is the Ombudsman’s opinion that the landlord had not done enough to put things right.
Under this Service’s remedies guidance, consideration is given for distress and inconvenience caused to a resident by service failures, considering the severity of the situation and the length of time involved as well as other relevant factors. In the landlord’s final response, no compensation was offered to put things right, even though it had the opportunity to do so. The resident expended time, trouble, and experienced delays. The landlord’s poor communication caused further detriment, and it is clear the resident experienced distress for a prolonged period.
In consideration of the cumulative failings by the landlord highlighted in this report, this Service finds maladministration in the landlord’s handling of various repairs to the property. Orders have been made that take into account the detriment to the resident, in line with our remedies guidance.

The landlord’s knowledge and information management.

A landlord should have systems in place to maintain accurate records. Good record keeping is vital to evidence the action a landlord has taken and failure to keep adequate records indicates that the landlord’s processes are not operating effectively. The landlord’s staff should be aware of a landlord’s record management policy and procedures and adhere to these.
Throughout this investigation the Ombudsman’s work has been hampered by either a lack of evidence or the provision of poor-quality records by the landlord. The landlord did not provide evidence of complete contact notes with the resident or its contractor, or clear dated logs to evidence when its contractors attended the property.
The landlord’s inability to provide these documents demonstrates that its processes are not operating correctly. Its information system also omits known household vulnerabilities. As such, there was service failure in the landlord’s record keeping as it either did not have, or did not provide, multiple records which would have helped this investigation. An order has been made that the landlord conducts a case review, and a recommendation to review the Ombudsman’s Spotlight report on Knowledge and Information Management, published in May 2023.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52. of the Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of various repairs to the property.
In accordance with paragraph 52. of the Scheme, there was service failure in the landlord’s knowledge and information management.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

Within 4 weeks of the date of this determination, the landlord is ordered to:
1. Apologise in writing to the resident for the failings identified in this report.
2. Pay directly to the resident’s bank account, compensation totalling £700, comprised of:
  1. £600 for the distress caused, as well as the time and trouble expended by the resident for the landlord’s handling of various repairs to the property.
  2. £100 for the failures in the landlord’s knowledge and information management identified in this report.
3. If the landlord has not done so already, compensate the resident for her actual losses incurred by higher energy use. It is to assess the kilowatt hours used by her for heating in the affected period between the date she first reported the roof leak, until it had repaired the ceiling, and compare this to the same period a year prior. This is subject to her providing evidence of her energy use, but the landlord is to support her doing so.
4. If the landlord has not done so already, it is to visit the property and inspect the rear door, as well as carry out a damp survey. It is to confirm in writing the condition of the door and the property, and whether any repairs are required, to the resident and this Service. If any repairs are applicable, it is to provide timescales that consider vulnerabilities of the resident’s household.
Within 8 weeks of the date of this determination, the landlord must:
1. Conduct a case review, to understand why communication failures between itself and the resident, and its contractor happened, and how to avoid them. This is to include, but not limited to:
  1. The landlord’s approach to first time repairs.
  2. Communication with its contractors.
  3. Record keeping.
The landlord is to provide evidence of compliance with the above orders to this Service.

Recommendation

The landlord is to review the recommendations set out in the Ombudsman’s Spotlight report on Knowledge and Information Management, published in May 2023.