Islington Council (202001723)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202001723

Islington Council

28 February 2021

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 repairs to the resident’s guttering.
The landlord’s handling of repairs to the resident’s internal walls and ceiling.
The landlord’s handling of repairs to the resident’s door and carpet.
The landlord’s complaint-handling.

Background and summary of events

The resident has had a tenancy with the landlord since 7 April 1986.
On 27 September 2019 the resident contacted the landlord to advise that damage was being caused to his property as a result of problems with the gutters. He noted that there was loose plaster coming away from the walls inside his property. A ‘routine’ work order was raised with a timeframe of 25 days for the landlord to attend the properly and repair the internal walls. On 3 October 2019 the landlord’s plumber attended the property to assess the required repairs. It recommended the need for scaffolding to be put up both at the front as well as at the rear of the house, given the resident told the contractor on that day that the water was overflowing the guttering. The inspection confirmed the view that this problem with the guttering was causing damage to the internal walls.
A week later on 10 October 2019 a roofer attended the property and confirmed the same recommendation, noting that it was unable to carry out the repairs at that time as a ladder was required with two contractors as well as for scaffolding to be erected at the front and rear of the property. An appointment was booked for 21 October 2019.
On 17 October 2019 the landlord’s plasterer attended the property and carried out repairs to the recess wall in the downstairs back bedroom, sheeting up the room and hacking off some of the plaster. The resident stated in his letter of 25 October 2019 that only part of the work was done because the ceiling and the wall in the upstairs back bedroom were damp. The landlord’s internal notes following the job indicated that the upstairs work couldn’t be completed until the guttering was fixed, and the resident was advised to call the contractor to rebook the appointment once the roof was fixed.
On 21 October 2019 an appointment had been booked at the resident’s property for a roofer to attend and carry out repairs to the guttering. When the contractors did not attend during the scheduled time, the resident rang the landlord to request an update and was told to wait until 6pm, which he did but the contractors still did not arrive. The landlord stated in its stage one complaint response of 9 December 2019 that the contractors had attended on that day without making contact with the resident, but had to reschedule a new appointment for 18 November 2019 because scaffolding had not yet been erected to access the guttering. The following day, 22 October 2019, the resident contacted the landlord’s repairs team and was promised a return call back which he stated he did not receive.
On 28 October 2019 the landlord’s plasterer again attended the property to continue repairs works on the recess wall in the downstairs back room. It applied two coats of rendering to the wall and booked another job for the wall to be skimmed.
On 29 October 2019 the landlord’s roofers attended the property but could not carry out repairs to the guttering because the scaffolding had not yet been erected. On 5 November 2019 the landlord emailed the resident to state that the appointment had not gone ahead on 29 October 2019 due to the lack of scaffolding.
On 7 November 2019 the landlord’s plasterer again attended the property to continue repairs works on the recess wall in the downstairs back room. The wall was undercoated and painted.
On 15 November 2019 the landlord wrote to the resident acknowledging the ongoing repair issues and that an appointment had been booked for 18 November 2019 between 10am and 12pm for contractors to attend the property and draft the drawings and measurements for the scaffolding. The smaller than usual timeslot was noted as a goodwill gesture in recognition of his prior inconvenience. The resident received the letter on 16 November 2019, which was a Saturday.
On 18 November 2019 the landlord’s plasterer completed repairs to the recess in the downstairs back room. On the same day the appointment was scheduled for the landlord’s other contractor to attend to take the required measurements for the scaffolding, however the contractor did not attend. The resident called the landlord at 12:15pm to advise that the contractor had not turned up.
On the same day, the resident replied to the landlord’s letter of 15 November 2019, noting that he had only received the letter advising of the appointment on 16 November 2019 which gave him no chance to contact the landlord regarding the suitability of the appointment. He noted again in the same letter that the contractor had not turned up to the scheduled appointment that day.
On 20 November 2019 the landlord wrote to the resident, apologising for the contractor not attending on 18 November 2019, noting that the contractor had been sick. It set out that following the letters, it had been able to obtain the measurements and drawings for the scaffolding at the rear and front of the property. It noted that the scaffolding had been arranged to be erected on 27 November 2019, with the works to the guttering to be carried out on 28 November 2019 between 12pm and 5:30pm. It apologised for any inconvenience and advised the resident of the complaints procedure if he wished to raise one.
On the same day, 20 November 2019, the resident raised a stage one complaint, in which he set out the following:
1. The gutters, both at the front as well as at the back of the house, were not functioning properly, and as a result considerable water damage was being caused to certain parts of the house, including:
  1. To the ceiling, recess and sidewall of the upstairs back bedroom
  2. In the recess of the dining room at the back of the house downstairs
  3. To the front door of the house as well as to the front part of the hallway carpet.
2. Following two inspections, one of which the resident considered to be completely unnecessary, the appointment scheduled for 21 October 2019 was missed, despite it having been confirmed by text message and the resident calling the landlord that day.
3. Following an exchange of letters, the landlord advised the resident that the previous appointment for the scaffolders had in fact been booked for 29 October 2019, not 21 October 2019. The resident stated that he was not advised of this appointment and he objected to the property being inspected without notification and when he was not home.
4. Contractors again missed the 18 November appointment.
5. The experience had meant his time was wasted, and he was experiencing considerable stress, inconvenience and aggravation which was detrimental to his state of health. He also noted that he felt he was still being blamed for “refusing” to have the repairs done, and also that the landlord had failed to respond to his telephone calls.
On 25 November 2019 the landlord telephoned the resident to discuss the complaint. On 27 November 2019 the scaffolding was erected and the following day, 28 November 2019, the roofers commenced the repair work on the gutters, unblocking and resealing the guttering at the rear of the property. Another appointment was booked for 13 December 2019 to renew the front guttering.
On 6 December 2019 the resident spoke to the landlord on the phone reporting that he was having trouble closing his door and that water was getting through the gap and causing damage to the carpet and underlay.
On 9 December 2019 the landlord provided its stage one complaint response in which it set out the following:
1. It apologised for the resident’s needing to complain. It explained that on 21 October 2019 the contractors had attended the property but left because the scaffold had not yet been erected to access the guttering. Subsequently a new appointment was booked for 18 November 2019 which also did not go ahead because the contractor had called in sick.
2. Despite this, and because the repairs team had already obtained the scaffold drawing, the scaffolding was erected on 27 November 2019. The next day the required repairs were carried out, being the unblocking and releasing of the rear guttering. On that day, a job was raised for the front guttering and downpipe to be fully renewed on 13 December 2019.
3. It noted the concerns the resident had raised about the other issues with trouble closing his door allowing water through, and damage in other parts of the property, specifically his belief that internal works were required to the back room, the recess of the dining room at the back of the house and the damage at the front of the house around the door and hallway carpet.
4. Having reviewed the repairs history, no recent repair jobs had been raised for these concerns, and so it had raised jobs for these to be addressed, and the repairs team would contact him to book these in.
5. It noted it was partially upholding the complaint on the grounds that, had the initial appointment been successful and the scaffolding erected, the repair would have been resolved a lot sooner. It apologised for this. It did not find a further service failure regarding the 18 November 2019 appointment as the contractor’s illness was an unforeseen consequence and the rebooking of works was carried out in line with its process.
On 10 December 2019, the landlord raised a repair order for the front door, advising the resident of the ‘urgent’ priority with a timeframe for completion of seven days. On 11 December 2019 the landlord’s contractors attended the property to inspect the repair issues with the door. It established that the door had a draught excluder in place which meant it was weathertight, and the resident demonstrated that the deadlocks were not operating as they were jamming and worn out. The resident later set out in his complaint that, as of that date, the door was difficult to open and sometimes even impossible without the assistance of another person pushing it from the outside. A follow-on ‘routine’ priority job was booked for 2 January 2020.
On 12 December 2019 the resident responded to the landlord’s complaint response, noting that he was unhappy that no-one had made him aware that the 21 October 2019 appointment could not go ahead due to the lack of scaffolding, which had resulted in him waiting all afternoon in vain. He was also dissatisfied that he had been advised on the telephone to continue waiting until 6pm in the hope that the contractors might turn up, when it should have been made clear that the appointment was not going ahead. He stated that he had not received a call back since the cancelled appointment on 21 October 2019, that he had not been advised of the 29 October 2019 appointment and that the contractor had not attended the 18 November 2019 appointment. With regards to the latter he was also not told that the contractor would not attend.
The resident raised the following additional points:
1. Since the repairs team were able to obtain the scaffold drawing from the scaffold inspector, he asked:
  1. Why had the landlord chosen to put him through missing two appointments which were proven to be unnecessary, and
  2. Why had it taken from 10 October 2019 until 27 November 2019 before the scaffolding was put up.
2. He had been asking the landlord for seven weeks to attend to the problem with the front door, which had sustained considerable water damage along with the hallway carpet due to the malfunctioning of the gutter above it.
3. He was experiencing difficulty opening the door from the inside due to the fact that the bottom wooden frame had expanded due to the water, noting it had taken the landlord seven weeks to arrange a contractor to attend and that remedial work had not been scheduled until 2 January 2020.
4. The water marks on the ceiling and side wall in his bedroom were getting larger, and parts of the paint on the ceiling were bubbling and peeling off.
On 13 December 2019 the landlord’s roofer contractors attended the property and completed the repairs to the gutters, clearing the rubbish, carrying out the fix on the gutter and new downpipes.
On the same day, 13 December 2019, the resident contacted the repairs team to discuss the issue of the damaged carpet and underlay and was told that it was not that team’s responsibility. A new job was raised for the landlord to fix the damaged ceiling, recess and sidewall in the back upstairs bedroom and given a ‘routine’ priority with a timeframe of 25 working days. The landlord scheduled an appointment for 3 January 2020 for a plasterer to attend to this. The resident has stated that at the 13 December 2019 appointment, it became apparent that the rendering on the roof of the house was in “bad shape” and that this may have contributed to the water damage to the ceiling in the upstairs bedroom. He expressed to the landlord his opinion that the rendering on the roof should be repaired before the scheduled plastering work was carried out, and that the appointment on 3 January 2020 should therefore not go ahead.
On 2 January 2020 the landlord’s carpenter carried out repairs to the resident’s front door. On the same day, 2 January 2020, the landlord provided its review of its stage one complaint response to the resident in which it set out the following:
1. It noted the resident’s key concern was its communication. It sincerely apologised that on 21 October 2019 there was no communication with the resident and that he had waited all afternoon to wait for contractors who had already attended, and also more generally for its poor communication.
2. It noted that with regards to getting a call back from the repairs helpdesk, the resident had stated that he had not received a call back for 53 days, following a promise to call back on 22 October 2019. It stated however that it had made contact with him on 25 November 2019 as part of the complaint-handling to give him an update on the works. It also repeated its position on why no one had attended on 18 November 2019, being that the contractor was unwell. It also stated that because the repairs team had obtained the drawings, the work continued on 27 November 2019.
3. It noted that the resident had referred to not being advised of a 29 October 2019 appointment, but its records did not show one booked on that date. It requested further information so this could be investigated.
4. It also set out that the front door repair job had been raised on 9 December 2019 and carried out on 11 December 2019. Having established the repairs, a follow-on appointment had been booked for 2 January 2020. An appointment had also been booked for 3 January 2020 to inspect the damage to the upstairs walls and ceiling.
5. It noted that it was partially upholding the complaint. It declined the resident’s request for compensation of £188.81 as its position was that the repairs team had carried out the works within the required time frame. It did however make an offer of £35 to the resident which it stated was in line with its compensation policy, broken down as follows:
  1. £15 for the missed appointment given the resident had stated he was not advised of the 21 October 2019 appointment, and
  2. £20 for the delay and lack of communication that led to the resident making the complaint.
On 3 January 2020, the landlord’s plasterer attended the property to carry out works on the damaged part of the ceiling and the side wall in the upstairs bedroom. The work was unable to be completed however because the affected areas were found to be damp, which the resident expressed was in line with the concern he expressed on 13 December 2019. A new job was raised as an ‘urgent’ priority with a deadline of seven working days and an appointment was scheduled for 14 January 2020 to inspect the rendering on the roof.
On 6 January 2020 the resident wrote to the landlord questioning how it had, as set out in its 20 November 2019 letter, been able to acquire the drawings and measurements for the scaffolding when both the appointments specifically arranged to ascertain these had not gone ahead. In also noted that it had taken ten weeks before an appointment was arranged for a carpenter to inspect the front door and another three before the repair work was done, during which period the water damage to the door, carpet and underlay was getting progressively worse. He reported that it had become progressively harder to open the door, requiring him to call a friend to attend the property and force the door inwards on four occasions to allow him out, and accidentally pulling out the letter box from the door when using it as leverage in an attempt to force the door open. He also noted that the appointment on 3 January 2020 had not resulted in the work being completed for the reasons he had already expressed concerns about which were ignored. He requested that the landlord provide compensation of £100 to him on 20 January 2020 to avoid him pursuing the matter further.
On 14 January 2020 the landlord’s roofer attended the property to carry out repairs to the rendering on the roof, but was unable to carry out the repairs due to the adverse weather. It also noted that the repairs would require two contractors to attend.
On 17 January 2020 the landlord attended the property to carry out a post-inspection on the renewed front gutter and downpipe. It was noted that these were in good condition and that no follow-on actions were needed.
On 20 January 2020 the landlord wrote to the resident noting it had carried out a full review of the complaint at stage one up until that point. It stated that, having reviewed all the information and correspondence about the complaint, it agreed to pay the requested compensation amount of £100. It had attempted to call the resident but had been unable to leave a message for him.
On 23 January 2020 the resident wrote to the landlord stating that his offer to settle the dispute was on the condition that £100 was to be credited to his rent account by 20 January 2020, noting that this had not been done. He therefore requested that the complaint be escalated. He noted the repairs to the rendering of the roof as well as to the ceiling and side walls of the bedroom were still pending. He also noted the scaffolding had been up for almost two months which was causing a lot of security concerns for him and his neighbours.
On 28 January 2020 the landlord’s roofer attended the property to carry out repairs to the rendering on the roof. It could not complete the works, noting again that the repairs would require two contractors to attend and an appointment was booked for 6 February 2020.
On 1 February 2020 the resident wrote to the landlord stating that the appointments of 14 January 2020 and 28 January appointments had “come to nothing.” He noted that there still remained repairs pending to the ceiling, recess and side wall of the upstairs back bedroom.
On 6 February 2020 the landlord’s contractors failed to attend a scheduled appointment between 8am and 1pm. The resident stated that he received no contact from the landlord to update him on this. On 11 February 2020 contractors attended the property. According to the landlord’s final response the resident refused to allow the work to go ahead.
On 26 March 2020 the landlord provided its stage two and final complaint response, noting:
1. It apologised for the inconvenience and frustration that the resident had experienced. It apologised that the initial appointment on 21 October 2019 with the contractors was not kept, and that the rescheduled appointment was not attended due to the sickness of the contractor. It acknowledged that the resident had not refused for the work to be done, but had contacted the landlord on the latter appointment day to say that he could not be available outside the scheduled time for the appointment. It noted it would have been helpful for him to have been contacted directly and told the operative was unwell, and it apologised that this did not happen. It also apologised that the resident felt he had not received a promised call back from 22 October 2019.
2. It noted that the initial delays in inspecting the gutter were caused because the works request was passed to the contractor without the provision for scaffolding. It apologised for this oversight while noting that, once it was erected on 27 November 2019, the gutter was assessed the following day and works completed on 13 December 2019. It also set out that there were two separate issues at the property, the roof rendering and the guttering. The distinction may not have been made clear to the resident which may have helped to explain the numerous appointments which at times seemed unnecessary to him.
3. The scaffolding drawings and measurements were completed on 18 November 2019. The issues with the front door were raised on 10 December 2019, with a contractor attending the following day to assess the necessary works. The appointment scheduled for 2 January 2020 could not have been done earlier due to previous work commitments.
4. It apologised that the carpet at the front door was damaged by water ingress, while noting that this should be claimed on contents insurance.
5. The 3 January 2020 appointment to inspect the damaged wall had been agreed to by the resident. Works could not be done because issues remained with the roof and the resident had agreed to re-book once the works were completed. There was a required drying out period before internal works could be done which was usually 4-6 weeks.
6. An inspection to the back of the property was completed on 14 January 2020 but the rendering works could not be traced due to rainy weather on the day, so a new appointment was agreed to be arranged for 28 January 2020. When contractors returned on that day the gutter was cleared and the contractors traced the rendering works previously obscured by the rain. It was noted the work would require two men and four hours to complete.
7. The landlord understood that the roof works remained outstanding because the resident refused to have the work done when contractors arrived on 11 February 2020. It had asked its operatives to contact the resident with a mutually agreeable date. It agreed that there had been lots of appointments made for this “seemingly straightforward” repair and appreciated the frustration caused for which it apologised. It noted the repairs history confirmed that for each appointment, the resident was advised of the priority code of ‘routine’ and the timeframe for the works specified which ranged between 7 to 25 working days.
8. It considered that the complaint was valid and it was partially upheld, and noted that the £100 offer was made to the resident on 20 January 2020, which was the date the resident requested the sum be credited to his rent account by. It considered that this offer was valid and remained open.
On 31 March 2020 the scaffolding at the front of the property was removed. On 7 April 2020 the resident cancelled an appointment because of a family member displaying Covid-19 symptoms. On 14 May 2020 the landlord’s roofers attended the property to carry out the repairs to the rendering on the roof of the house. On 18 May 2020 the scaffolding at the rear of the property was taken down.

Policies and Procedures

The landlord does not have a copy of the original tenancy signed on 7 April 1986 but has provided evidence of the tenancy.
The landlord’s repair policy sets out various levels of repair priorities:
1. ‘Urgent’ jobs must be completed within seven working days
2. ‘Routine’ jobs must be completed within 25 working days.
The landlord’s website sets out further guidance on its policy for major repairs:
1. On occasion the landlord will be unable to complete a repair, because the problem is beyond economical repair or requires replacements. Should this be the case, the repairs operative will complete a temporary repair and refer the issue to the Major Repairs Team. The landlord aims to complete all major repairs within 12 weeks of its first inspection. However if there are leaseholders in the block it may need to consult them first.
The landlord’s complaints policy sets out a multiple stage process:
1. At stage one, the landlord will provide a response within 21 calendar days
2. Following a request for a review of the stage one response, a response must be provided within ten working days.
3. Following a subsequent request for escalation to a stage two complaint, the landlord will provide a response within 28 calendar days.
The landlord’s compensation policy sets out:
1. Compensation payments of £15 will be made to residents where the landlord’s staff member or contractor misses an arranged appointment except when access wasn’t granted by the resident or when it would be unsafe to carry out the visit.
2. Where the landlord cannot keep an appointment, the resident must be notified by 5pm at least one full working day in advance of the appointment e.g. if an appointment made for Wednesday cannot be kept, the resident must be notified before 5pm on the Monday.

Assessment and findings

Repairs to guttering

The resident first reported the issue with the guttering to the landlord on 27 September 2019, at which point a ‘routine’ priority work order was raised which required the landlord to make right the repair issue within twenty-five working days. Within this period the landlord’s contractors attended the property and confirmed work that was required, being the erection of scaffolding as a starting point to carry out repairs to the guttering.
Various appointments booked by the landlord to carry out the repair work on the gutters could not be completed, including on:
1. 21 October 2019, when contractors attended the property but left without carrying out the works due to the scaffolding not being in place. The resident was not advised that the contractors had attended and that the work could not go ahead, and waited at home all afternoon for their attendance even after trying to clarify the situation with the landlord.
2. 29 October 2019 when the contractors attended but faced the same problem with the scaffolding not yet having been put up. The resident was not made aware of this appointment until after it had occurred.
3. 18 November 2019 when the contractor scheduled to attend to ‘measure up’ the scaffolding to be put in place, but then did not attend due to illness. The resident was not made aware that the contractor would not be attending and called the landlord once the booked timeslot had elapsed.
The landlord failed to communicate adequately with the resident about these appointments. There was a lack of communication between the landlord, the resident and contractors on 21 October 2019 which resulted in the resident continuing to wait for the latter even once they had attended and established the work could not be carried out. The resident was also not given notice of the 29 October 2019 appointment which went ahead without his knowledge and was not notified when it became clear the contractor was ill on 18 November 2019. In calling to clarify the situation with the landlord on both 21 October 2019 and 18 November 2019, the resident was not given up to date information.
The landlord’s compensation policy sets out that the resident is entitled to £15 for an appointment that does not go ahead without at least one full working day’s notice to the resident. Despite the fact that contractors did attend the property on 21 and 29 October 2019, the work did not go ahead and the resident was also not made aware of the contractor’s attendance. The resident was also not made aware of the 29 October 2019 appointment ahead of time, nor the fact that the 18 November 2019 appointment would not go ahead. The landlord has acknowledged each of these failings and offered compensation for the 21 October 2019 appointment in its first review response. While some of the appointments were arguably not “missed” per se, it is reasonable in the circumstances that the resident be compensated for these as no work was carried out.
Following these appointments, the landlord has established that it was able to “obtain the measurements and drawings” for the scaffolding without another appointment. This was therefore able to be erected on 27 November 2019 followed by the works to the guttering which commenced the following day, 28 November 2019. Due to the extent of the necessary work, a further appointment was required on 13 December 2019, by the end of which the gutters had been cleared, renewed and fixed with new downpipes put in place, resolving the repair job. This job was therefore finalised approximately 55 working days after the initial report was raised.
While the landlord initially classed the work as a ‘routine’ priority repair, requiring it to be made right within twenty-five working days, the need for the erecting of scaffolding suggests the work could validly be classified as major repair works. This would extent the time period within which the landlord would reasonably be expected to complete the works, as well as the technical time limit of twelve weeks as set out on its website. Though this requires a consideration of what is reasonable given the extent of the necessary works centered around the major task of erecting the scaffolding, it must also look at the inconvenience caused to the resident to judge whether there has been service failure.
The reasons for the length of time taken to complete the guttering work appear largely to have been failures of communication between the landlord and its contractors as the 21 and 29 October 2019 appointments did not go ahead because the scaffolding had not been erected. The landlord had been made aware by its contractors on both 3 and 10 October 2019 that the scaffolding should be installed, and the contractors should not have attended when this work was not completed. This was the major contribution to the delays, as the work progressed promptly once the scaffolding was in place and was completed within the twelve week time period for major works. The landlord acknowledged this in its final complaint response, stating that the initial delay was caused by the works request being passed to the contractor without the provision for scaffolding which was an oversight. This resulted in the offer of compensation, £45 of which was for the missed appointments and the avoidable delay that stemmed from these.
The landlord’s final offer of compensation to the resident was £100, to match the request made by the resident. It was appropriate that the landlord made a compensation offer to the resident given it was made aware of the distress and inconvenience caused to him by the missed appointments and delays which took the work well outside its set repairs timeframe. Given the landlord’s policy established the resident was entitled to £45 for the missed appointments, it can be assumed that the remaining £55 was offered as compensation for the length of time taken to undertake the work and the inconvenience caused to the resident. Given the scope of the works, this was a reasonable offer to make in the circumstances.

Repairs to internal walls and ceiling

The problems with the peeling plaster inside the property were reported as part of the initial repair report on 27 September 2019. Repairs were subsequently carried out to the downstairs bedroom on 17 October 2019, 28 October 2019, 7 November 2019 and 18 November 2019. Given the initial response of the landlord in booking the appointment within its routine repair timeframe, its response in following-up the works with separate appointments was appropriate to take the necessary steps to fix the issue. The repair records support the position that these separate appointments were necessary to fix the issue, and though this took it beyond the 25 working day timeframe, the approach was still reasonable in the circumstances given the extent of the work necessary and the proper inspections undertaken by the landlord.
The same work was not able to be carried out on the upstairs bedroom however due to the damp walls and ceiling. The landlord’s repair log noted that the guttering needed to be fixed before the plastering work could be undertaken to stop the issue with the damp, and a significant part of the delay was therefore a consequence of the established delays with the work carried out on the guttering and roof. The landlord’s complaint response of 9 December 2019 indicated that there were no open repair jobs for the plastering works at that time, given they had been cancelled until the guttering work was finalised. This was an appropriate practical approach to take given the pending guttering work, though the plastering work remained outstanding during this period.
The resident reported on 12 December 2019 that the problems with the walls and ceiling were continuing to spread. The landlord acted appropriately in response by raising a new repair job for these issues the following day, 13 December 2019, as soon as it was able given the works were completed on the guttering. The appointment that was subsequently booked for 3 January 2020 however did not progress the issue because the surfaces were still damp as pointed out by the resident at the 13 December 2019 inspection who expressed his concern as to why the appointment had nevertheless been booked. The evidence suggests that the resident made the landlord aware of this fact at that inspection, so it should have known there was a reasonable chance the 3 January 2020 appointment would not have finalised the internal works if there was still a problem with the rendering on the roof.
The landlord’s subsequent work confirmed that the rendering was an issue, and it booked appointments on various days to attempt to resolve the problem, specifically:
1. 14 January 2020, when a contractor was prevented from carrying out the repair to the rendering due to adverse weather and also attended without a second contractor when two were required for the job;
2. 28 January 2020, when the contractor attended but again did not have enough staff for the job to be carried out;
3. 6 February 2020, when a scheduled appointment was missed;
4. 11 February 2020, when the landlord states that the resident did not allow the contractors to carry out the work.
The timeframe of the works being undertaken went well outside the landlord’s set ‘routine’ timeframe of 25 working days which caused distress and inconvenience to the resident who regularly contacted the landlord for updates over the course of the repair issue, noting that the condition of the walls was continuing to deteriorate. The work to the rendering was not completed until 14 May 2020, and it is unclear on the available evidence if the necessary work to the plastering in the upstairs bedroom that should have been carried out following this was completed. It should however be noted that there were other delays outside the control of the landlord that occurred. The resident refused the contractors access to carry out the works on 11 February 2020 and in April 2020 the work had to be postponed due to a family member of the resident being required to self-isolate due to Covid-19 symptoms. Additionally, the landlord noted that there was a required drying out period before internal works could be done which was usually 4-6 weeks. Each of these factors must be taken into account in establishing whether the landlord’s actions were reasonable and in line with its policies.
It may be that these works should also be considered as ‘major works’ given the need to carry out work to the rendering on the roof and the need to continue using the scaffolding that was already in place at the time, rather than the landlord’s initial classification of them as ‘routine’ works. However even if this was the case and the landlord’s actions considered against this extended timeframe, the total length of time taken to carry out the works was still unreasonable. It included repeated delays caused by contractor miscommunications in January and February 2020, missed appointments and continuing inconvenience to the resident. There was also a lack of clarity as to whether the plastering works were finalised following the completion to the work on the rendering in May 2020, a number of months after the need for the work was established, and approximately seven to eight months after the plastering issues were first reported.

Repairs to door and carpet

The landlord has stated that the resident first reported problems with the door and carpeting on 10 December 2019, which was the day it raised a repair order for the door and carried out an inspection the following day. The evidence indicates that the resident had reported problems with his door to the landlord at least as early as 20 November 2019 in his stage one complaint, and the problems were elaborated on and clarified further in his telephone call with the landlord on 6 December 2019. The landlord acknowledged the latter in its complaint response of 9 December 2019.
Following the raising of the ‘urgent’ repair job with a timeframe of seven working days on 10 December 2019, the contractor attended the next day and established that the door was weather tight. On this basis it amended the job to a ‘routine’ priority with a timeframe of twenty-five working days, with the follow-up job booked for 2 January 2020 as the earliest available appointment. It should be noted however that the resident has stated that, at that point in time, he was having significant difficulties opening the door. This had resulted in the mailbox being broken when it was used for leverage and the resident also requiring a neighbour’s assistance on at least four occasions to help him force the door open. The repairs to the door were nevertheless completed on 2 January 2020.
The landlord’s repair policy does not make clear whether such a repair issue for the door should rightly be classified as a routine or urgent repair. The landlord elected to class it as ‘routine’ on the basis that its inspection established the door was weather tight. It subsequently met its scheduled timeframe for repair. However the fact that the resident had such significant difficulties using the door simply to get in and out of the house without assistance implies that the job could potentially have been classified as a more urgent priority. It is noted that an inspection was carried out the day after the repair job was raised, and within a week of the resident’s call with the landlord on 6 December 2019. It must also be considered that the landlord booked in its earliest possible appointment following this. As a result, these actions do not amount to service failure though it is clear the resident has experienced inconvenience as a result of the issue.
The landlord directed the resident to make a contents insurance claim for the damage to his carpet, which was in line with its policy. This was an appropriate step to take and the landlord’s internal communications and policy supported this position as set out in its final complaint response.

Complaint-handling

The resident raised a formal complaint on 20 November 2019, and the landlord responded to this on 9 December 2019 which was within its complaint policy timeframe. The resident made a request for a review on 12 December 2019 which was responded to on 2 January 2020 which was also within the relevant timeframe considering the office Christmas closure.
Following this, the landlord continued to engage with the resident who had requested on 6 January 2020 that compensation of £100 be provided to him by 20 January 2020. While this amount was agreed to and the letter sent to him on the latter day which was a prompt response, the resident did not consider that this satisfied the terms of his request. He requested the complaint be escalated on 23 January 2020, and the landlord subsequently provided a final response on 26 March 2020. This final response was provided to the resident outside of the landlord’s policy timeframe of 28 calendar days, missing the deadline by over a month. This would have caused further distress and inconvenience to the resident while the repairs remained outstanding.
The complaint responses themselves were appropriate in terms of their content. They addressed the various complaints raised by the resident and provided a response in regards to the resident’s various questions. Crucially they apologised for the missed appointments and explained the reasons that the October 2019 appointments planned for the guttering had not gone ahead, which was a question the resident had repeatedly asked. They also engaged with the resident’s request for compensation, and ultimately agreed to it, though the resident did not accept the offer because he considered the terms had not been met.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 55(b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there has been reasonable redress regarding the landlord’s carrying out of repairs to the resident’s guttering.

In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there has been service failure regarding the landlord’s handling of repairs to the resident’s internal walls and ceiling.

In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there has been no maladministration regarding the landlord’s handling of repairs to the resident’s door and carpet.

In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there has been service failure by the landlord in regards to its complaint-handling.

Reasons

There were significant delays in the landlord’s carrying out of repairs to the resident’s guttering, largely caused by multiple appointments that did not go ahead because scaffolding had not been erected at the property. The landlord has acknowledged this failing and explained it to the resident as being based on a miscommunication with contractors. The scope of the works which required the erecting of scaffolding support the position that these could be classified as major works under the landlord’s policy, extending the length of time the landlord would reasonably have to undertake them. The landlord’s acknowledgement of the inconvenience caused to the resident and the offer of compensation to him for the missed appointments and length of time taken to undertake the repair were appropriate in the circumstances.

There were additional delays in the landlord’s work on the plastering to the resident’s walls and ceilings, some of which flowed from the initial delays to the scaffolding and guttering jobs. However there were additional failed appointments in January and February 2020, some of which were caused by the landlord’s failure to undertake the necessary rendering works to the roof before sending contractors to work on the plastering in the upstairs back room. There is evidence that the landlord was aware of the necessary repair work but still sent contractors out with incomplete information which resulted in various appointments not going ahead. The rendering itself was not completed until May 2020, some months after the repair job was raised.

The landlord responded within its timeframes to the resident’s reports about the problems with the door. It carried out repairs in line with its policy, sending a contractor out to inspect the job following the report, and adjusting the job priority and timeframe on the basis of the evidence. It also appropriately directed the resident towards making an insurance claim for damage to the carpet.

The landlord provided its complaint responses within its timeframes at the stage one and stage one review stages. However it missed the deadline for its final complaint response by approximately a month.

Orders

The landlord, within the next four weeks, to pay to the resident the sum of:

£150 for its failures in the carrying out of repairs to the resident’s internal walls and ceiling.
£50 for failures in its complaint-handling process.

Recommendations

I make the following recommendation:

That the landlord, within the next four weeks, pay to the resident its previous offer of £100 for its failures in carrying out repairs to the resident’s guttering. The finding of reasonable redress is contingent on this payment being made.

Confirmation of these payments being made should be communicated to the Ombudsman within four weeks of the determination date.