Eastbourne Borough Council (202229454)

A blue and grey text

Description automatically generated

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202229454

Eastbourne Borough Council

28 March 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 response to:
1. The resident’s concerns about the conduct of its contractor’s operatives.
2. The resident’s concerns about various repairs.
3. The resident’s concerns about the water pressure.
4. The resident’s request for reimbursement for costs which include:
  1. The cost of a wardrobe which was damaged.
  2. The cost of decoration works.
  3. The cost of repairs required to the flooring.
5. The resident’s report that he considered the kitchen works were part of the right to repair scheme.

Background.

The resident is a secure tenant of the landlord, and his tenancy began on 24 February 2014. The property is a 2-bedroom house. The resident lives with his wife and child. The resident suffers with PTSD and chronic back pain. Both the resident and his wife suffer with insomnia, anxiety, and depression.
The resident had raised a complaint in May 2022 about the landlord’s contractor’s conduct which has already been determined by this Service in January 2024.
As a result of previous issues with the landlord’s contractors the landlord’s senior management was in regular contact with the resident during the works that took place in October and November 2022. The works included the fitting of a new kitchen.
On 9 November 2022 the landlord’s senior manager and its contractor’s manager visited the resident. The resident raised concerns about various repairs and the landlord provided details of how it would resolve the issues raised. The resident said that the landlord’s contractor had moved his wardrobe and damaged it. He reported that the flooring that had been laid by the landlord had air bubbles in it. During the meeting the resident also raised concerns about the conduct of the operatives when they attended which he had captured on CCTV. The landlord advised the resident that if he wanted a formal response in respect of its contractor’s behaviour, he would need to raise the issues via its complaint process.
On 24 November 2022 the resident raised a stage 1 complaint about the conduct of the landlord’s contractors. He provided CCTV footage to the landlord. He also said the noise his boiler was making had still not been resolved. When the landlord contacted the resident to discuss the complaint the resident raised further issues with various repair works that had been done that he remained dissatisfied with. The resident said he was waiting to be reimbursed for costs for a wardrobe and rectifying the flooring. He also said that he considered that the kitchen replacement works fell under the right to repair scheme.
The landlord sent a stage 1 response on 8 December 2022. It said it had reviewed evidence provided by the resident and its contractor. It explained its findings in respect of each incident involving its contractor. It upheld one incident where an operative had been seen vaping in the property for which it apologised. It explained that this was a breach of its policy and disciplinary measures would be taken. It offered £25 compensation for any inconvenience that this may have caused.
In respect of the noise from the boiler it said it had tested the boiler and could not find an issue with it. It would not be able to replace the boiler before its due date unless there was an identified issued that made it uneconomical to repair. It suggested the resident could consider getting his own independent report. It would then refund the cost if a fault was found. It provided its response in respect of the various repair issues raised. It did not consider that it should reimburse for the wardrobe and the flooring repair. In respect of the kitchen repairs, it said these did not qualify under the right to repair scheme.
The resident disputed the landlord’s version of events and said that the landlord had failed to address the attitude of the contractor and how this impacted his wife. He was reluctant to use the boiler on safety grounds. He could not afford to get an independent assessment as suggested. He disagreed with the landlord’s response about the various repairs and reimbursement of costs. He also said he was still waiting for reimbursement in respect of redecoration that he had been promised would be paid back to him.
The landlord provided a response at stage 2. It said it was sorry that his wife had been left feeling that way. It said that where one person’s words were at odds with another it was not possible to conclude either way with any certainty an accurate version of events. The landlord disagreed that it had promised to reimburse for painting and decorating but it was prepared to offer £200 as a gesture of good will. It re-offered £25 in respect of its contractor’s failings as identified in its stage 1 response.
The resident was dissatisfied with the response and contacted this Service. He wanted his boiler to be replaced and repairs to be completed. He also wanted compensation for money lost during the process.

Assessment and findings

Landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about the conduct of contractors.

The Ombudsman will not form a view on whether the landlord’s contractor’s actions themselves were appropriate. Instead, it is this Service’s role to decide whether the landlord adequately investigated and responded to the complaint, and took proportionate action based on the information available to it. For contractor conduct landlords should carry out an investigation. This may include conducting interviews and gathering evidence from all parties, to make an informed decision based on its findings.
The landlord’s stage 1 complaint response clearly explained how it had investigated the actions of its contractors and its findings. The resident said the landlord’s contractor had covered up damage to a unit. The landlord said the evidence did not confirm that its contractor had tried to cover it up and that the damage was minor. The landlord had however already replaced the unit at the resident’s request at the point the stage 1 was raised. This showed that it had listened to the resident’s concerns and had done all it could to try to resolve the issue. The landlord appropriately acknowledged that its contractors should not smoke /vape in resident’s properties and offered £25 compensation for any distress caused.
When the resident escalated his complaint to stage 2, he said that the landlord had failed to consider the impact of the contractor’s behaviour on his wife as she felt intimidated. The landlord apologised that his wife had felt that way which was appropriate. The landlord explained that where versions of events were at odds it was not possible to conclude either way exactly what happened. This response was reasonable in the circumstances.
In summary the landlord completed its investigation in a timely manner after the resident raised his concerns about the contractors. The landlord had already put in place additional supervision by senior management in order for the resident to feel comfortable with the work being completed due to the resident’s previous concerns. The landlord was entitled to view the evidence supplied by the resident and its contractor to reach its conclusion. In the absence of any evidence beyond what both parties had supplied it could not reasonably dispute its findings. It sought to put matters right where it could by replacing the unit and appropriately offered reasonable redress where it concluded that it had failed.

Resident’s concerns about various repairs.

In accordance with the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985, the landlord is responsible for certain repairs. Once on notice, the landlord is required to carry out the repairs or works it is responsible for within a reasonable period of time, in accordance with its obligations under the terms of the tenancy agreement and in law. The law does not specify what a reasonable amount of time is; this depends on the individual circumstances of the case.
The resident’s tenancy handbook states that the landlord is responsible for heating and hot water issues including cylinders and immersion heaters. The landlord will aim to complete priority 1 urgent repairs within 24 hours. Priority 1 includes total or partial loss of electric. It will respond to routine repairs within 28 days and planned works, within 85 days.

Boiler noise.

The evidence shows that the resident had reported that the boiler made a noise in February, March, April, and May. The landlord responded to each report made but could not recreate the noise. On a few occasions it identified parts that could be replaced which it did. In June 2022 the landlord arranged for an independent survey to be completed. The survey acknowledged that the resident had provided video evidence of the noise, but it could not recreate the noise on inspection. The audit survey concluded that the boiler was in fair condition with an estimated life span of 2 to 3 years.
The resident raised concerns again in October 2022. The repair records dated 19 October 2022 stated that a contractor had also witnessed the noise. In November 2022 the resident’s GP wrote to the landlord asking it to look into rectifying the noise of the boiler. It said the noise was causing the resident and his wife insomnia and anxiety which exacerbated their depression.
A second independent survey was completed in November 2022. This concluded that works were required to replace radiators. The report stated that the resident had confirmed that he had not heard noise from the system since the contractors had completed works.
The evidence shows that the landlord responded within its repair timescales and had taken appropriate steps to investigate the resident’s concerns. The landlord had arranged 2 independent surveys of the boiler which showed that it had taken the noise reports seriously and was actively trying to find a resolution.
The landlord is entitled to rely on the findings of its specialist contractors. Its explanation within its complaint response that it was unable to replace the boiler unless there was an identified issue that made it uneconomical to repair was also reasonable.
It also advised the resident to continue to report any issues and gave him the option to seek independent advice if he wished to do so. This Service has therefore found no maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports about the noise of the boiler.

Power outage

The landlord’s contractor mistakenly isolated all of the lights upstairs instead of just the one that was required to enable it to install a new ceiling. The sockets did still have power. The landlord responded the same day to restore the lighting upstairs. This response was within its own repair timescales of 24 hours.
It is acknowledged that the resident had the inconvenience of the landlord attending again when he had other commitments and how frustrating that must have been. However, the evidence shows that the landlord responded promptly to its error and tried to attend at 4.30pm. The resident was unavailable at that time, so the landlord arranged to attend out of normal working hours.
The resident said he had requested a phone call 15 minutes prior to the contractor arriving which did not happen. The contractor still managed to gain access to restore the lighting, so this did not cause further delays. However, the landlord may wish to ensure that if it arranges a call before arrival that the relevant information is provided to its contractor.
It is noted that the resident said he booked hotel accommodation as he believed the landlord would attend by 6.30pm. However, there is no evidence to support that a specific time was agreed. The landlord had to have the opportunity to respond within its timescales which it did. The lights were reinstated by 8pm. It was reasonable for the landlord to conclude that the repair did not result in the need for a hotel stay in these circumstances.
In summary this Service has found no maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports about various repairs. The landlord responded to the reports in accordance with its repair policy timescales. It investigated the resident’s concerns with an independent contractor on 2 separate occasions to try to resolve the issues with the boiler. It ensured that the resident was aware that he could continue to report matters if the issues arose again.
The landlord also gave the resident the option of seeking his own independent advice for which it would reimburse if faults were found. It was appropriate that the landlord relied on the findings of its specialist contractors. Furthermore, the landlord’s explanation about when it would replace the boiler was reasonable. In the Ombudsman’s opinion the landlord had done all it could to try to resolve matters.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about the Water pressure

The landlord’s stage 1 response states that it could not find any issues with the water pressure. It said that it understood that the resident’s concerns about the pressure related to the hot water on the non-standard mixer tap which the resident had requested, and it had fitted. The landlord said that as this was non-standard and of a different size it could impact the hot water flow. It said the resident could replace the taps at his own expense to standard taps to see if this improves.
The landlord’s repair records show that the resident had reported low pressure in the hot tap in October 2022 and the landlord attended. The landlord’s response at stage 1 was therefore in accordance with its own records. However, the resident then said in his stage 2 request that he had been informed that a pump was required to sort the issue of the water pressure throughout the whole house. The issue, he said was not just that particular mixer tap.
The landlord did not investigate this within its stage 2 response as it relied on its findings in its stage 1 response. There is no evidence to show that the landlord had been put on notice about the water pressure throughout the whole house prior to the stage 2. There was no evidence either that there had been discussions about the requirement of a pump. The landlord therefore missed an opportunity to investigate the resident’s concerns and put matters right at the point of the stage 2 complaint.
This was a failing in its response to the resident’s concerns about the water pressure. An order has been made for the landlord to check the water pressure within the whole property and write to the resident with its findings. An order has also been made for compensation for the time, stress and inconvenience to the resident having to pursue this element of his complaint further.

The resident’s request for reimbursement for costs

Damage to the wardrobe.

The resident advised that the landlord moved his wardrobe when it was completing works and it had been damaged as a result. It is unknown why at this point the landlord did not refer the resident to its insurance provider for him to make claim. Within his stage 2 request the resident explained that he had been verbally told that the cost of the wardrobe would be reimbursed. The records evidence that the landlord did not dispute that it had moved the wardrobe and that there had been some damage. The landlord’s meeting minutes dated 9 November 2022 also ask the resident to provide details of the cost of the wardrobe for it to consider. There is also further internal email correspondence in November 2022 between the landlord and its contractor which states that the resident had requested £500 to cover the cost of the wardrobe.
In later correspondence after the stage 2 complaint response. The landlord states that the resident had requested £500 for the damage to the wardrobe. It said its contractor had agreed to make a general good will payment of £200. It did not believe that this payment had been made as it did not receive any further details to substantiate the claim being made from the resident.
This contradicts what the landlord said within its complaint response that the resident had discarded the wardrobe prior to it being able to repair it so it would not cover the expense. This was a failing and a missed opportunity to resolve matters at an earlier stage. When this Service spoke to the resident, he advised that he still had the wardrobe which could be assessed in respect of the damage incurred. An order has been made below to try to put matters right in respect of the wardrobe. Compensation has also been considered for the time and effort to the resident in having to pursue his complaint further.

Decoration.

The resident states within his stage 2 complaint that he had financed painting and decorating earlier that year to complete an unfinished job. He said the landlord had “promised” that he would be reimbursed for the £360 costs. The landlord acknowledged this within its stage 2 response. It provided notes from its meeting with the resident where it said the resident was asked to provide the amount to be reimbursed in respect of the decorating so that it could consider it.
The evidence shows that prior to the complaint the resident had provided the landlord details of the costs of the decoration which he said amounted to £360. There is no evidence to show that the landlord responded or discussed this further with the resident.
It is acknowledged that the landlord offered £200 as a gesture of good will to offset some of the costs he had incurred in relation to the decoration in its stage 2 response. It failed to address however the fact that it had not provided a response to the resident’s request for reimbursement as agreed. This caused the resident further time, effort, and inconvenience in having to pursue the matter further. To put matters right this Service considers that the landlord should complete an assessment of its liability of the costs for the redecoration as it said it would originally. If it considers £200 is still appropriate in respect of the decoration works, it should explain in writing how it has assessed this amount to be correct. An order has been made in respect of this below.

Flooring

The resident states that after the landlord had laid the flooring there was air bubbles in the flooring. The records show that an issue with the flooring was raised with the landlord in November 2022. The records do not show that anything was agreed in respect of rectifying this. However, the records show that the resident had submitted an invoice showing it had cost £50 to rectify the flooring.
The resident states the landlord had verbally agreed to pay £30 to £40 towards the cost to resolve the issues. Although this Service does not dispute the resident’s version of events there is no evidence that any agreement had been made in respect of this. The landlord states within its stage 2 complaint response that it did not normally fit cushioned vinyl sheet flooring. It fitted it to assist the resident and it had been fitted in the same way in which it would fit standard flooring. It said it would not reimburse the resident if he needed to have the flooring repaired.
The evidence indicates that the landlord had agreed to lay the flooring for the resident. The landlord does not dispute this in its complaint responses. It should therefore ensure that the flooring is laid to the correct standard. At the very minimum it should have inspected the flooring once the resident made it aware that there were issues with the workmanship. That it did not was a failing. The resident has advised this Service that there are still issues with the flooring. This Service acknowledges the resident’s comments but given the lapse of time it would be difficult to assess whether the current issues are because of how the floor was laid.
The resident raised his concerns and the landlord failed to inspect the flooring to satisfy itself that it had done all it could to resolve matters. The resident then had to spend time and effort having to arrange for further works to be done to put matters right and to pursue the complaint further with our Service. The impact on the resident has been considered in the order below.
In summary there has been maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s requests for reimbursement for costs. The landlord failed to fully investigate what had been agreed with the resident in respect of reimbursement for the various costs he claimed. It also failed to consider its own standard of workmanship and whether it met the correct standard.
The evidence provided to this Service differs to the landlord’s complaint responses in respect of what may have been agreed and/ or discussed about reimbursement. At the complaint stage the landlord should have investigated what communication it had about reimbursement. It should have also considered whether it needed to assess reimbursement or refer the resident to its insurance provider and explain accordingly. That it did not was a failing and does not foster a good landlord tenant relationship. Various orders have therefore been made to put matters right. Compensation has been considered for the time, effort and inconvenience caused to the resident having to pursue the matter further.

Right to repair scheme.

The right to repair scheme is designed to ensure that residents can get certain minor repairs completed quickly and easily. It sets time limits for certain types of repairs, which local authorities must stick to. If the works are not completed within the time frame the resident can hire someone else. If the repairs are still not completed the resident can claim compensation.
The resident’s new kitchen installation had taken 6 weeks rather than 4 to complete. The resident considered that these works fell under the right to repair scheme. The landlord provided a response within its stage 2 complaint. It correctly explained that the installation of the kitchen was not a qualifying repair, and the resident would not be eligible under the scheme. The kitchen replacement works would not be deemed minor repairs, so the landlord’s response was correct.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 53(b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, in the Ombudsman’s opinion there was reasonable redress in relation to the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about the conduct of its contractor’s operatives.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was no maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about various repairs.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was service failure in the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about the water pressure
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s request for reimbursement for costs which include the wardrobe, decoration works and repairs to the flooring.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was no maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s report that he considered the kitchen works were part of the right to repair scheme.

Orders and recommendations

Within 4 weeks the landlord is ordered to:
1. Apologise to the resident for the failings identified in this report.
2. Pay the resident £535 in compensation made up of:
  1. £25 already offered for the distress and inconvenience caused by the conduct of its contractors (if it has not already done so).
  2. £60 for the stress and inconvenience caused by the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about the water pressure.
  3. £200 already offered for the reimbursement of decoration works (if it has not already done so).
  4. £250 for the stress and inconvenience caused by the landlord’s response to the resident’s request for reimbursement for costs.
Within 6 weeks the landlord is ordered to:
1. Check the water pressure within the whole property and write to the resident with its findings. A copy of this should be provided to this Service also within 6 weeks.
2. Assess the resident’s claim for reimbursement for the wardrobe and write to the resident to explain its findings and its calculations if it deems reimbursement is appropriate. A copy of this should be provided to this Service also within 6 weeks.
3. Write to the resident to explain how it has concluded that £200 is appropriate for reimbursement for the cost of decoration. The response should include any calculations. A copy of this should be provided to this Service also within 6 weeks.