Hackney Council (202216179)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202216179

Hackney Council

27 July 2023

Our approach

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

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

The complaint

1. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of repairs to the resident’s toilet.

Background

2. Although no tenancy agreement has been provided, it is the Ombudsman’s understanding that the resident is a secure tenant at the property of the landlord. The landlord is a local authority.
3. The property type is unknown but has access to one toilet. The resident has a physical vulnerability which the landlord is aware of.
4. The resident reported to the landlord on 21 August 2022, that her toilet was leaking every time she flushed, and as such she was unable to use the toilet. The landlord’s contractor attended an out-of-hours appointment on the same day. The contractor determined that a new toilet pan would be required.
5. The contractor supplied a temporary toilet, as the resident would be unable to use hers while waiting for repairs. The resident declined this as she believed the chemicals were too strong and could be harmful to a vulnerable member of her household. Further repairs were booked for the 28 August 2022, but were brought forward to the afternoon of 26 August 2022.
6. The landlord’s contractors attended in the morning on 26 August 2022, but were unable to gain access to the property and cancelled the job.
7. The resident reported a burst toilet pipe on 1 September 2022, and wanted an update on her repair. The landlord attended the following day and made a temporary repair, but required new parts for a full repair. Its repair records state that the toilet repairs were completed and new parts fitted on 8 September 2022.
8. The resident raised a complaint the same day, saying that she and members of her household were unable to use the toilet for an unreasonable period of time. She said that this was now affecting her mental health and well-being, and felt that given her physical vulnerabilities, the toilet should have been repaired earlier. She requested compensation for the timeframe she was without a working toilet.
9. The landlord issued its stage one complaint response on 15 September 2022. It did not uphold the resident’s complaint but apologised for the defective toilet and recognised the distress this has caused. It provided a basic timeline of events, and noted its operative’s attendance on 26 August 2022, but stated that due to circumstances beyond its control, it was unable to repair the toilet at an earlier stage (though no further details have been provided in this case).
10. The resident escalated her complaint to stage two the following day as she remained unhappy about not receiving compensation.
11. The landlord issued its stage two complaint response on 18 October 2022. It upheld the resident’s complaint, stating that it admitted that the repairs should have been raised as an urgent repair and would have expected the repairs to be completed within 48 hours of being reported. It added that it had found multiple jobs raised for the works, but these were cancelled without any reason. It agreed that a missed appointment had taken place as its operatives attended in the morning instead of in the afternoon as previously agreed. It apologised and offered £95 in compensation. This was broken down as follows:
    1. £20 for the time the resident was without a working toilet.
    2. £25 for its missed appointment.
    3. £50 for the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident.
12. The resident contacted the landlord on the same day stating that the stress resulted in her going back on medication, and that had impacted her physical and mental health and wellbeing. The landlord replied the same day, stating that if the resident believed the landlord to be liable for this, she would need to register a medical negligence claim under its insurance. It provided its insurer’s contact details to enable her to make a claim.
13. The resident brought her complaint to the attention of this service as she remained dissatisfied with the outcome of her complaint. She raised concerns that she had been reporting the toilet for some time but the landlord did not seem to care. She felt humiliated and that it was disgraceful that the landlord advised her she would need to visit a neighbour or family member in which to use the toilet since she rejected the temporary toilet, as she was unable to walk long distances due to her medical vulnerability. The resident attributed the repair delays to the detriment of her mental health and well-being.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

14. The resident has attributed an impact on her mental health and well-being to the landlord’s delays in repairing the toilet in this case. While the Ombudsman does not doubt the resident’s comments, we are unable to conclude the causation of, or liability for, impacts on health and well-being. The resident has been advised by the landlord to make a medical negligence claim against the landlord to its insurer, and the Ombudsman agrees that the resident should do so if she feels her health and wellbeing has been jeopardised by the landlord’s handling of the repairs in this case. The resident has been provided with a copy of its insurer’s details to enable her to do so.
15. In her communications to this service, the resident explained that she had been reporting the toilet leak for some time prior to her complaint raised with the landlord, though she did not clarify a timeframe. However, no evidence has been provided by either party in relation to this concern. As such this aspect of the resident’s complaint has not been considered in this report. This is in accordance with paragraph 42(a) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, which states that we may not consider complaints that have not exhausted the landlord’s internal complaints procedure. This is because the landlord needs to be given the chance to investigate and formally respond.

Assessment

16. It is not disputed that the landlord is responsible for the repairs to repair the toilet. In accordance with its repairs policy (located on its website) the landlord would be obligated to attend to emergency repairs within 24 hours and make safe the repair. Where further repairs are necessary, it is to complete urgent repairs within five working days. Its website lists that where a toilet is unable to be used, or flushed, and is the only working toilet within the property, it would be obligated to treat it as an urgent repair.
17. The landlord had rightfully identified that the repair was urgent and responded to the resident’s reports as an out-of-hours appointment on 21 August 2022. This initial response was reasonable and in line with the landlord’s policies. It appropriately kept the resident informed that new parts were required and that this would require follow-on work. Given the urgency and the resident’s vulnerabilities, it was appropriate that it rearranged the works from 28 August to 26 August 2022.
18. Given that an immediate repair was not possible, the landlord appropriately offered a temporary toilet, which was a reasonable approach in the circumstances. The resident declined this offer as she considered the chemicals to be hazardous to her, and members of her household’s health. Given that the resident had declined this option, it would have been helpful for the landlord to have considered other options. Even if another suitable option was not available, it would nevertheless have been useful to have had these discussions with the resident to demonstrate it took her concerns seriously, and that every option had been explored. It is not evident that the landlord did this, however.
19. Similarly, given that the resident’s concerns were about the chemicals used in the temporary toilet, it would have been helpful to have provided her with more information at the earliest opportunity. While the landlord did provide some further information about the chemicals, this was not until 5 September 2022, after some time had already passed.
20. The resident has expressed concern that the landlord suggested she use the toilet of a neighbour or a family member. The Ombudsman notes that this would likely be an embarrassing option for the resident; however, it was reasonable for the landlord to put the idea forward as one of the possible solutions.
21. The landlord correctly identified that there had been a missed appointment by its operatives on 26 August 2022, as they arranged to attend in the afternoon, but arrived in the morning, and, according to the landlord’s repair logs, the job was cancelled. This unreasonably led to delays in the resident’s toilet being repaired, as the next attendance was not until 2 September 2022 some five working days later.
22. According to its records, the landlord completed the toilet repairs on 8 September 2022. This was 13 working days after it was reported on 21 August 2022, and eight working days over its stipulated timescale of five working days for an urgent repair.
23. When failings are identified, the Ombudsman’s role is to consider whether any redress offered by the landlord has put things right and resolved the resident s complaint satisfactorily. This is in accordance with the Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles; be fair, put things right, and learn from the outcomes.
24. In this case, the landlord sought to put matters right by acknowledging and apologising for the delays to the repairs. It accepted that the repairs should have been prioritised and completed at an earlier stage.
25. The landlord also sought to put things right by offering compensation. The landlord’s compensation policy notes that a fixed offer of £25 should be made for a missed appointment, and £10 per week of delays to repairs should be offered. It may also offer compensation for distress and inconvenience. In the Ombudsman’s opinion, while the landlord’s offer followed its policy, the amount relating to the distress and inconvenience was not sufficient in the circumstances. The offer did not take into account the missed opportunity to discuss other options (or otherwise put in writing that other options weren’t available), nor did it take into account the delays to further information about the chemicals.
26. In the circumstances, these failings with communication, along with the other identified delays amount to service failure, for which additional compensation is appropriate. An order has therefore been made for £200 in compensation to reflect the impact of the delays, the missed appointment, and the poor communication given the resident’s vulnerabilities.

Determination (decision)

27. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme there was service failure by the landlord in respect of is handling of repairs to the resident’s toilet.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

28. The Ombudsman orders the landlord to pay compensation of £200 for any distress and inconvenience caused to the resident by its delays to repairs and poor communication.
29. This replaces the landlord’s previous offer of £95. This amount must be paid within four weeks of the date of this determination.

Recommendations

30. The landlord is recommended to:
    1. Review its repairs system and look to prioritise repairs based upon residents’ needs and medical vulnerabilities in the future.
    2. Review its record keeping practices in regard to policies, repairs and contact to and from the resident due to the lack of information within some of the evidence provided in this case.