Hounslow Council (202001016)

 

 

 

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202001016

Hounslow Council

5 January 2021

Our approach

 

1.     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.

 

2.     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

 

3.     The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of:

 

3.1 Repairs requests to the resident’s windows and doors;

 

3.2 Complaints about water pressure at the resident’s property;

 

3.3 Repairs and maintenance to the guttering at the resident’s property;

 

3.4 The associated formal complaint

 

Jurisdiction

 

4.     What we can and cannot consider is called the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. This is governed by the 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.

 

5.     The resident has advised the Ombudsman that she made a Freedom of Information request of the landlord, but it did not supply all of the required information. This Service is unable to determine this issue and adjudicate on the landlord’s response. This is in accordance with paragraph 39(m) of the Scheme which states that the Ombudsman will not investigate complaints which fall properly within the jurisdiction of another Ombudsman, regulator or complaint-handling body. This matter should be referred to the Information Commissioner’s Office which has jurisdiction to consider data protection and freedom of information issues.  

 

Summary

 

6.     On 23 November 2019 the landlord serviced the resident’s boiler. The resident subsequently reported hot water problems on 16 December 2019. The landlord’s records indicate that an engineer attended the property on 17 December but was unable to gain access and the issue was resolved via an appointment on 20 December 2019.

 

7.     The resident raised a formal complaint on 15 January 2020 citing several issues. She noted that she had previously tried to raise complaints by telephone at the end of November/beginning of December 2019 but did not receive a response to her query.

 

8.     The resident reported that she had no hot water or heating on 31 January 2020. The landlord attended on 1 February 2020 and identified that a pump failure was causing the boiler to overheat. This was replaced and the engineer’s notes show that the pump replacement addressed the problem.

 

9.     In the landlord’s Stage 1 response of 13 February 2020, it noted that its Principal Surveyor had inspected the resident’s windows and concluded that they were in good overall condition as installed. He had emailed the resident on 13 November 2019 to inform her of this and to confirm that the landlord considered that no further action was required. While investigating the resident’s complaints the landlord advised its maintenance team to carry out cyclical maintenance to the property. This was to consist of gutter cleaning and repair where necessary and painting of all timber components to the external fabric of the building including facias and soffits, external doors and windows.

 

10. The landlord also noted that its painting and decorating team had carried out a pre–inspection at the resident’s home and found that decking and a gazebo had been installed so the gutter maintenance work could not be completed due to the amount of space required. However, the landlord advised that a further inspection would be carried out on 17 February 2020 to determine if the work could be completed safely. 

 

11. This inspection went ahead as scheduled and the contractor advised that the resident’s hot tub was restricting the use of ladders to carry out the specified works in a safe manner.  This was based on the contractor’s risk assessments for working at height which found that the position of the hot tub was causing an obstruction. The landlord concluded that the structure needed to be removed from its location before works to the rear elevation could be completed in accordance with the specification for the maintenance works. Its records also noted that the required approval had not been obtained for the citing/installation of the structure.

 

12. On 17 February 2020 the resident requested that her complaint be escalated to Stage 2 of the landlord’s complaints procedure. The landlord visited the resident on 17 March 2020 to further inspect her home and issued its Stage 2 response on 18 March 2020. It acknowledged that its Stage 1 response did not address the resident’s complaint about boiler repairs but noted that these repairs had been carried out in line with its service standards. The landlord partially upheld the complaint that the quality of the Stage 1 response was insufficient.

 

13. The landlord then set out its view that the windows and doors did not require replacement and that there was not a significant mould problem as the resident had claimed. It confirmed that it had considered the photographic evidence taken by its staff, observations made during a visit, the view of the Principal Surveyor, and further photographic evidence supplied by the resident. Having done so it remained of the view that the windows did not require replacement. However it concluded that loose sealing strips to a door identified by the resident required a further visit to investigate and decide on what action might be needed.

 

14. The landlord concluded that its staff who had visited the property concluded there was sufficient water pressure for bathing and ordinary use. It advised that the request for an electric shower or pump would be a request for an improvement rather than a repair and that it was not obliged to carry this out. It clarified that the resident had been provided with a mixer tap/attachment rather than a full functioning shower and that if she wished to make her own improvements to the property and fit an electric shower or pump, she could do so but must submit a formal application to her Housing Officer for consideration.

 

15. The landlord also acknowledged that the resident’s complaint about the Customer Relations Team was not addressed in its Stage 1 response. It identified that its officer was unavailable when the resident called and, whilst the officer tried to call back there was no message service to leave a message and this was not followed up in writing and so the resident did not receive a response. The landlord upheld this part of the complaint and advised the resident that it partially upheld her overall complaint. She was advised that she had now exhausted the landlord’s complaints process.

 

16. On 23 June 2020 the resident confirmed to the Ombudsman that she had made her own arrangements for her gutter cleaning to be carried out at the same time as window cleaning. She confirmed that this was completed without the need to move her gazebo or hot tub. She advised that the landlord indicated to her that it had a new piece of equipment called a sky vac and that in future once its staff were trained in using this cleaning of the gutters could be carried out using this method. She has said that, while the landlord informed her that somebody would carry out an inspection, nobody attended to do so.

 

Policies and Procedures

 

17. The landlord operates a two-stage complaints procedure. The timescale for responses at Stage 1 is 15 working days and the potential outcome is that the complaint is upheld, upheld in parts (partially upheld) or is not upheld.

 

18. Residents dissatisfied at the conclusion of the Stage 1 investigation have the right to request a further review of their complaint at Stage 2. Requests for escalation to Stage 2 must be submitted within 28 days of receiving the outcome of the Stage 1 response. The landlord may decline to pursue a Stage 2 review if it considers there are no grounds for a Stage 2 review but where it considers this is the case it will set out its reasons in writing. Where a Stage 2 review is conducted a response setting out the findings and outcome should be issued within 20 working days.

 

19. The landlord’s repairs policy classifies repairs as emergency repairs and non-emergency repairs. Emergency repairs are defects or faults which put the health, safety or security of a tenant at immediate risk or cause harm to the structure of a property. These include: burst pipes or uncontrollable leaks, no power to the property, boarding up broken windows, insecure front door or window or loss of drinking water.

 

20. The landlord’s policy specifies its responsibility for repairs is to maintain the structure of the property and any installations. The structure includes outside items including the roof, chimney, foundations, drains, gutters, pipes, and external walls, front doors & window frames.  The structure also includes inside items including the walls, floors, ceilings and windows. Residents are response for the inside of their home and any attachments. This includes responsibility for filling minor cracks in plaster, repairing and replacing fences shared with neighbours, internal doors, handles and hinges inside the property, and cupboard catches.

 

21. The landlord’s policy identifies that emergency repairs should be attended to within 24 hours, Urgent repairs will be attended to within 5 days and routine (non-emergency) repairs should be completed within 20 days. Minor works, which are classified as larger jobs that require more planning, will be completed within 40 days.

 

Assessment

 

Repairs to Windows and Doors

 

22. Under the terms of the tenancy agreement and its repairs policy the landlord is responsible for maintaining the exterior of the property and addressing defects or broken items and carrying out repairs and maintenance in accordance with its policy. As a result, it was necessary for the landlord to investigate the resident’s concerns and to take appropriate action to resolve any issues it identified.

 

23. The landlord and resident hold different views on the need to replace the windows and doors. The landlord investigated the resident’s concerns and considered whether repair or replacement was required. The view of its staff who inspected was that the condition of the windows did not necessitate replacement. While the resident may disagree with this view it was reasonable for the landlord to act on the judgement of its qualified surveyors and to conclude that replacement was not necessary. Subsequent issues should, however, continue to be addressed as repairs in accordance with the policy.

 

24. The resident identified a potential issue with loose sealing to the doors and requested a repair which the landlord agreed to investigate. However, no clear timescale was given for the inspection or any follow-up action. The landlord’s policy identifies that non-emergency repairs should be completed within 20 working days. The lack of clarity over when this inspection and any remedial work might be completed caused the resident some anxiety as well as delay in having the matter resolved.

 

Water Pressure Complaints

 

25. There is a difference of opinion between the landlord and resident concerning the issue of water pressure and the need to install a shower to resolve this. The landlord responded to the resident’s concerns about water pressure by carrying out appropriate investigations into the issue and the view of its staff was that the water pressure was adequate.  

 

26. The landlord’s repairs obligation is to carry out repairs to address faults. However, the landlord notes that, rather than a shower having already been installed at the property, a mixer tap/shower attachment was in place. It therefore considered that installation of a shower would be an improvement rather than a repair that fell within its repair obligations.

 

27. While the resident may disagree with the landlord’s view, the landlord was entitled to rely on the opinion of its suitably qualified surveyor, with regard to the adequacy of the water supply. The landlord, as a provider of social housing, is encouraged to make the most effective use of its limited resources, and this means that it is not always able to carry out works requested by residents. Instead, it must rely on its surveyors to assess what is required and what would constitute an improvement. With that in mind, it remains open to the resident to install a shower in accordance with the terms of her tenancy agreement, if she wishes to do so.

 

Guttering Repairs

 

28. The landlord has investigated the resident’s complaints about guttering repairs and confirmed that maintenance to guttering and painting of the external fabric of the property fall within its repairs responsibilities and will be carried out. However, there is a dispute between the resident and landlord concerning access to the rear of the property to carry out this work which has impacted on completion of the required maintenance. The landlord has agreed to carry out the repairs/maintenance but its contractors raise safety concerns about doing so. While the resident may disagree with the landlord’s approach it is not unreasonable for the contractors to consider safety concerns in the placement of ladders and for the landlord to remind the resident of the tenancy conditions concerning alterations to the property.

 

29. The inspection of 17 February 2020 to assess viability of carrying out maintenance was not followed up which left the resident in some uncertainty over how the matter would be resolved. The landlord indicates that the resident’s actions were a factor in preventing the maintenance work from being carried out. If the landlord considers that there is a breach of tenancy conditions and that it cannot fulfil its maintenance obligations because of this, then the matter should be pursued via the enforcement/retrospective approval processes outlined in its Stage 2 complaint response to ensure that required maintenance can continue.

 

30. Alternatively, if there is now a different method available for conducting the cleaning, the resident should be provided with information on whether and when this might be possible. Without this the resident is left in limbo concerning the completion of repairs and maintenance works in the future and is caused anxiety and uncertainty in that regard.

 

The Formal Complaint

 

31. There were failures in the handling of the resident’s complaint as the Stage 1 response was issued outside of the 15 working days provided for by the policy and it failed to address all the complaint issues. While the landlord acknowledges this in its Stage 2 response, the resident was put to additional time and trouble in pursuing answers to the points she raised and in receiving a full complaint response.

 

32. The Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles indicate that landlords’ complaints handling procedures should be user focused and demonstrate that their purpose is to resolve disputes and restore the residents’ position in the event of anything going wrong. The landlord has partially upheld the overall complaint and has apologised to the resident.  However, given the acknowledged failures in handling the complaint it would have been appropriate to consider compensation for the resident and to recognise the time, trouble and distress that she was put to in pursuing full answers to the issues she raised. 

 

Determination

 

33. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Scheme, there was:

 

33.1         service failure by the landlord in respect of its handling of:

 

33.1.1  repairs requests to the windows and doors;

33.1.2  the associated formal complaint

 

33.2         no maladministration by the landlord in its handling of:

 

33.2.1  the water pressure complaints;

33.2.2  the guttering repairs.

 

Orders 

 

34. The Ombudsman orders the landlord to:

 

34.1         if it has not already done so, complete its inspection of the loose sealing to doors and provide the resident with details of any remedial action to be taken and the timescales for this;

 

34.2         pay the resident £75 compensation for its poor handling of the formal complaint.

 

Recommendation

 

35. The Ombudsman recommends that the landlord should, if it has not already done so, provide the resident with details of whether and how the gutter cleaning might be carried out in the future and whether its staff can now carry this out without requiring removal of the resident’s hot tub/gazebo. If the landlord remains of the view that cleaning cannot be carried out without removal of the structure this should be clearly communicated to her and action taken to address this issue.