Lambeth Council (202007286)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202007286

Lambeth Council

24 November 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 resident complains about the landlord’s:
1. Response to her reports of repairs at the property.
2. Response to her reports of a pest control issue.
3. Handling of the complaint.
The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s record keeping.

Background

Both Section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act and the landlord’s own repairs policy set out that the landlord is responsible for keeping in repair the structure of the property, including the windows, and for maintaining in good working order any installation to supply heating.
The repair policy sets out four categories for day-to-day repairs:
1. Priority 1 – those repairs that the landlord must undertake within 24hrs and/or by emergency callout of the repair being reported.
2. Priority 2 – undertaken within 2 working days after the repair is reported.
3. Priority 3 – undertaken within 5 working days of the repair being reported.
4. Priority 4 –undertaken within 30 working days of the repair being reported
The Ombudsman has not had sight of the landlord’s pest control policy, although its website (as of 12 November 2021) states that “Council tenants do not have to pay for pest control services”.
The landlord’s complaint policy details a three-stage process:
1. Early resolution, where the landlord would try and resolve the issue straight away, without a written response, and the complaint would be recorded as closed unless the landlord received further communications.
2. Local resolution stage, where a more senior member of staff would take a fresh look at the problem and provide a response within 20 working days.
3. The final review stage, undertaken by an Improvement & Review Officer and a member of the Senior Leadership Group.
The landlord’s compensation policy allows for compensation to be paid in cases where service failure has adversely affected the customer.

Summary of events

The landlord has submitted very little in the way of records on this case, and therefore it has been challenging to understand the full chronology. The following summary is mainly based on the information and evidence provided by the resident.
The resident moved to the property in December 2019. Over the following months the resident contacted the landlord on a number of occasions about repairs at the property, which included issues with the heating system and the windows. On 2 February 2020 the resident emailed the landlord to ask about upgrading the windows as these were in a poor state, and although contractors had attended to carry out works to them, they were beyond repair. She explained how the cold caused by the poor state of the windows was affecting her health and asked for an inspection of the windows.
The resident then made an online repair report on 17 February 2020 about this same issue saying that the windows needed to be replaced, but one in particular was leaking. An appointment was made for the repair, but then rescheduled as a surveyor was booked to carry out an inspection on 10 March 2020. On 13 March 2020 the resident contacted the landlord to ask if the repairs and actions identified at the inspection had been raised, specifically:
1. Securing the floorboards to stop them squeaking, and soundproof plywood to be fitted throughout the whole flat.
2. To be added to the capital works list for a window upgrade. Windows to be repaired in the meantime, for example the faulty locks and leaks.
3. An inspection of the floor of the property above due to noise transference, and to make repairs as necessary to stop noise transfer.
In relation to the last point the resident said that she was advised that an option to soundproof the living room and bedroom could be sought if necessary. She provided a video recording which she explained was of the creaking and vibrations in the bedroom area.
The resident chased this up on 24 March 2020, recognising that the Covid-19 pandemic would impact the repairs, but stating that her health was at risk, for example from noise nuisance and from substances such as pollen and bacteria penetrating the windows. The landlord replied the following day explaining that only emergency repairs were being undertaken.
The resident responded on 17 April 2020 explaining why she felt that the repairs constituted an emergency. The landlord said that it would forward her concerns to the responsive repairs team who would respond in ten working days. The resident chased this up on 5 May 2020 as she had heard nothing further, saying that the work to the floors was urgent. The landlord replied the next day explaining that the surveyor had confirmed that all works had been raised for the floor and the window adjustments. The neighbour’s property would be inspected once Covid-19 restrictions had eased.
The landlord then said that it could not carry out the flooring works as an emergency, it would need a surveyor to attend to inspect again, and surveyors were not attending properties at that time due to Covid-19.
On 6 July 2020 the resident submitted a formal complaint about the property not being to a lettable standard. She listed several repair issues, including the windows, which she was expecting to be upgraded as per the surveyor’s visit in March 2020, and an outstanding request for soundproofing. She also listed an outstanding repair to loose, noisy floorboards which meant she had been unable to lay floor coverings in her home, and detailed pest control problems.
The resident also explained that the boiler did not support the radiators heating properly due to a lack of a Magnaclean (a type of filter), although she had not yet logged this issue. The resident emailed the landlord again on 19 August 2020 with this same complaint. The landlord acknowledged the complaint on 25 August 2020, apologising for the length of time it had taken to respond. It said that it would be in touch with the resident about the issues she had raised.
On 9 September 2020 the resident emailed her MP setting out her complaints and noting that she had received an acknowledgment of her complaint from the landlord, but no response. The MP forwarded the resident’s email to the landlord and asked for its reply.
Internal emails show the landlord trying to obtain information from its gas team about the heating system issue. On 25 September 2020 the gas team replied that it had last attended on 1 September 2020 for a boiler repair, and the engineer’s note from the visit stated that the heating and hot water were working. The resident had explained to the engineer that she had been advised that the boiler was old and was ‘clogging up’ the radiators due to a lack of a Magnaclean. The gas team noted that while this was recommended, it was not mandatory, and it did not know who had advised the resident about Magnaclean.
The MP chased the landlord on 2 October 2020, asking for its response. In the meantime the resident contacted this Service, who wrote to the landlord on 19 October 2020 asking it to respond to the formal complaint.
Also on 19 October 2020 the resident emailed the landlord to say that she had contacted the repair service to re-raise the job to repair or replace the floorboards, strengthen the joist and add hardwood to the floor. She said she wanted to know whether she could purchase mineral wool for the landlord to add to the void space when completing repairs, thereby reducing noise transference.
Internal emails show the landlord trying to ascertain the situation with the heating system, with the gas contractor stating on 11 November 2020 that:
1. It would only install a Magnaclean when installing a new boiler, and that it was not required to install one due to ‘general repair’.
2. The resident had been informed by a third party, and not the gas contractor, that a Magnaclean was required.
3. The boiler was five years old and did not require changing as there weren’t any faults. The system was ‘functional’ at the attendance of 1 September 2020. If the resident was reporting that the heating was defective, it would attend the property again following an order being raised.
The landlord emailed the resident on 8 January 2021, stating that it was responding to the complaint it had received from her on 22 October 2021 (although a copy of a complaint of this date has not been provided). It said that following on from an inspection, the surveyor had raised an order to remove and re-fix loose floorboards. The landlord said “Records confirm that appointments have been made by [the contractor] to carry out this repair, but they have been cancelled or amended at your request.” It asked the resident to contact the contractor to rearrange an appointment. The landlord also said that its responsive repairs service did not provide sound insulation, and advised that noise nuisance should be reported to the Housing Officer.
The landlord explained that the request for window renewals had been noted by the area surveyor however, the responsive repairs team only dealt with repairs. It said “Window renewals are generally managed by the Capital Works team who carry out external property upgrades throughout the borough on a programmed basis. This team will contact you directly when a window upgrade programme is scheduled in your area.”
In relation to the heating system, the landlord relayed the gas contractor’s advice that the boiler in the property was five years old and did not require replacement, as it had no faults, and it had been fully functioning on 1 September 2020. The landlord also relayed that the “…advice received regarding the requirement of ‘Magnaclean’, would have been by a third party”, but then added that “this was issued as a requirement by Lambeth heating contractors.” The landlord said any new issues with the boiler or heating should be reported to the gas servicing team.
On 12 January 2021 the landlord emailed the resident’s MP, stating that this was in response to their enquiry of 9 November 2021 (a copy of this has not been provided). The landlord said that an appointment was made to ‘remove and refix single floorboards’ for 10 December 2020, but the resident cancelled and re-booked it for 4 January 2021. It said “The tenant informed [the contractor] that she is trying to make an arrangement with the council. I spoke with the Area surveyor on 7 January 2021 and he confirmed that the council will give her permission to soundproof her home. He will send the resident a letter of confirmation.”
On 23 January 2021 the resident emailed the landlord in reply to this email. She said that she had not been cancelling jobs, rather “I simply have been rescheduling them because of the fact no one has been getting back to me about my requests for over a year.” She said that she wanted the landlord to acknowledge the severity of the structural issues at the property which she believed were causing excessive vibrations from above and below. She understood that the contractor was waiting for the landlord to confirm works could go ahead and had stated that the floor may need to be completely replaced, with the joist and beams renewed throughout the property. The resident noted that the landlord had still not inspected the upstairs property, and was unhappy that the landlord had put the issue down to noise nuisance.
The resident stated that as the landlord was aware, the windows were beyond repair and the contractor had confirmed that no further ‘day to day’ jobs would help. She said that some were sealed shut as there was no other option to stop the leaking and asked for a realistic timeframe for them to be replaced.
The resident said that as the landlord had noted, the lack of a Magnaclean had been picked up in regard to the boiler, and this was affecting its performance. The radiators were inoperable unless on ‘max’ and although the landlord had power washed the system this had made no difference, and there was nothing further gas servicing could do, other than to buy a Magnaclean for the boiler or upgrade the boiler itself. The resident referenced a six-week period that she had been without heating in 2019/2020. She outlined the impact the situation was having on her health, and said she was waiting for feedback on ongoing pest control issues. She asked to have the matter reviewed so that the complaint could be looked at by the Ombudsman.
The resident also contacted this Service, who emailed the landlord on 22 January 2021 and asked it to provide a final response to the complaint. The landlord acknowledged this that same day.
On 25 February 2021 the resident emailed the landlord stating that she had something to add to her complaint. She explained that she had been contacted that day by responsive repairs, possibly as she ‘put in another contact’ with the capital works team on 15 February 2021 to get an update on the works to the floor. She said “[The contractor] had already contacted Lambeth this year to state that the job was indeed, a major repair job that needed the floor ripped up in several rooms in the property. From my understanding…the supervisor at [the contractor], explained to Lambeth that this job would need to be re-raised to reflect the level of work…Alongside this, the surveyor has agreed for my home to be soundproofed as there are severe structural and noise issues in several parts of the property mostly from above and below…”.
The resident said that in the conversation with the responsive repair team that day it transpired that the same job (to undertake minor works to the floor) had been re-raised. Following this she spoke to the contractor, who agreed this would need to be cancelled and that the landlord needed to raise an order for more extensive works, which should include renewal of joist, beams, floorboards, skirting boards and door adjustments as well as working out whether she would need to be moved from the property while this work was completed. The resident said that she did not mind contributing to the soundproofing works, but felt that as this was the landlord’s responsibility it should be liable for most of the costs. The resident asked for compensation for the length of time the matter had been outstanding.
The landlord had a telephone conversation with the resident on 26 February 2021 where the complaint was discussed, and on 1 March 2021 it emailed the resident with a summary of the complaint, as follows:
1. The property had no heating for six weeks from 21 December 2019, and the radiators were still not working efficiently because of a build-up of mercury in the system.
2. The windows were lopsided and difficult to operate, with some not opening at all, and the resident was on the list for a Capital Works upgrade and waiting for this to go ahead.
3. The floors in the property were in poor condition due to movement in the property, and sound proofing was required. Responsive repairs attended however the resident felt it was a Capital Works issue.
4. The resident was seeking a rent refund for the six weeks without heating, a boiler upgrade, and confirmation on when the windows would be replaced, and the floor and soundproofing matters would be addressed.
The resident replied saying this was correct and added two additional matters:
1. The inspection that should have taken place of the upstairs property in relation to repairs or soundproofing to help with noise transference
2. Pest control issues and how mice were accessing the property.
After the resident chased the landlord on a number of occasions, a final response was provided dated 1 April 2021. In this the landlord listed a number of jobs that had been raised and attended to. Regarding the heating system, the contractor had explained it had attempted to attend the reported heating issues in the property between 16 December 2019 and 23 January 2021 but were unable to do so due to a lack of response to the contact they made to try and arrange this. Therefore, the landlord would not be compensating the rent for this period. Further, as the boiler was only five years old, and there was no evidence to show that the lack of Magnaclean was affecting its performance, it did not require replacement.
In relation to the windows, the landlord said that an order had been raised on 12 March 2021 to ease, adjust and carry out required repairs to all windows but was cancelled due to no access. The surveyor that had inspected the windows did not find that new windows were required. No capital works to replace them were planned, which the resident had been informed of.
The landlord went on to say “Regarding the floor/soundproofing, the surveyor confirmed that the Responsive Repairs team does not carry out soundproofing. However, excessive noise caused by neighbours would need to be reported to the Housing Officer.” It suggested that a sound monitoring machine could be used if required and asked the resident to report the issue to Housing Management. It explained that it had not responded to the issue of pest control, as this was not a matter that had been raised at stage one of the complaint process, and advised the resident to contact the pest control team.
Overall, the investigation found no failings on the part of the landlord as the repair issues had been attended to, but some of the works had to be cancelled due to a lack of access. The landlord awarded £110 for the delays with the handling of the complaint.
The resident replied stating that there had never been any issue with gaining access to the property, and as she had previously explained “…jobs didn’t go ahead because I had difficulty in getting contact back from officers in regards to major works with the level of work that actually needed to take place. So jobs were rescheduled in order to get answers which has taken over a year to do.”
As an example, the resident noted that the landlord’s complaint response had said that a job was raised on 15 October 2020 to attend to the floors, but contractors could not gain access. The resident explained this was incorrect, this was a re-raised job following on from the March 2020 surveyor inspection, that was not carried out due to Covid-19. However, before this the contractor did carry out an initial visit and the follow up was delayed because both the resident and the contractor had been trying to contact the surveyor about the level of work required. She said, “Had a conversation with [the contractor] taken place it would have been discovered that [it had] attended on a number of occasions over the year, have taken measurements and pictures/ videos and have been waiting for Lambeth to approve their report…”
The resident said that she wanted the work to go ahead and noted that there had still not been an inspection of the property above. She asked when someone would come to look at the windows to determine when they would be upgraded. The resident confirmed that she would escalate the complaint to this Service.
In response the landlord again advised the resident to contact Housing Management about the noise, and to contact the repairs team if she wanted to carry out soundproofing work herself. The repairs team would be carrying out the works to the floor that had previously been raised.
The resident contacted Housing Management about the noise on 7 April 2021, who said this was not a matter for them but for the repairs team, and forwarded the enquiry to them. In an email to the landlord dated 13 April 2021 the resident said that she had spoken to the repairs team about soundproofing, who had told her that a surveyor would need to instruct this, and the resident said she still did not know what the process to follow was. She explained that she had received a call from the repairs team to say that another surveyor visit would be taking place on 27 April 2021. The resident noted she had heard nothing further about the works to the floor.
The resident reports that following the 27 April 2021 surveyor inspection, works were agreed to the floors and windows, and a structural engineer was to attend to inspect both her property and the one above. The works were sent to a subcontractor that would have the capacity to carry out the work and it attended in June 2021, inspected the property and submitted a variation order which was approved by the landlord on 24 June 2021.
However, at that same time the main contractor’s contract with the landlord ended, which meant that the subcontractor’s did also. A new contractor was appointed, and the resident has said that instead of directing the new contractor to carry out the works detailed on the variation order, the landlord sent it to carry out the same ‘day to day’ repairs that had originally been raised. When the new contractor attended, it found that the work needed was too complex and so could not complete it.
The Ombudsman understands that the resident has continued to chase these repairs with the landlord to date, but they have not been completed.

Assessment and findings

When considering complaints the Ombudsman applies its Dispute Resolution Principles, which is good practice guidance developed from the Ombudsman’s experience of resolving disputes, for use by everyone involved in the complaints process. There are only three principles driving effective dispute resolution:
1. Be fair – treat people fairly and follow fair processes
2. Put things right
3. Learn from outcomes
It is important to note that it is not the Ombudsman’s role to determine exactly what repairs/works are required at the property, but rather, to decide whether the landlord has responded to the resident’s reports of issues appropriately.
In her complaint to this Service, the resident explained that there are a number of damaged floorboards at the property, a weakened joist and a high level of ‘vibrational noise’. She also detailed a “..high level of impact from above which is compromising my ceiling”. The resident says that she offered to pay for soundproofing materials to try and resolve the problem, but this has been ignored. The resident has said that these issues have meant that she has been unable to lay floor coverings, the property is colder than it should be, and problems have been caused with neighbours due to the noise issues the bare floors cause.
The resident said that the windows are in a very poor state of repair, and while attempts had been made to fix them they are now beyond repair. Some had been sealed shut to stop rainwater leaking in. She has said that this has again meant that the property is colder than it should be as the windows let in cold air and draughts.
The resident states that the heating system performs poorly as it does not have a Magnaclean, and the radiators do not get fully hot unless turned on ‘full blast’. Again, she says that this contributes to cold in the property. In addition, the resident is unhappy that the landlord decided not to reimburse her rent for the full six weeks that she was without heating at the property on the basis that she did not provide access, which she says is incorrect. Further, the resident states that there are mice accessing the property and running along inside the ceiling, and the landlord have failed to deal with this.
She has explained that she has had to contact the landlord many times about these issues, there had been a lack of decision making and failure to follow up requests, and the landlord keeps sending contractors to the property to carry out ‘day to day’ repairs, when it has already been established by these contractors that in fact more complex work is required. The resident has also set out the impact these issues have had on her health, her employment, and her studies, stating that she has lost earnings due to these issues causing financial hardship. As a resolution to this complaint the resident would like all the repairs to be addressed and to be financially compensated.
The Ombudsman asked the landlord to submit information to assist with this investigation, however as noted under the ‘summary’ section of this report, very little has been provided. For example, there are no copies of the surveyor’s findings, no telephone notes, or reports received from contractors. The stage two response details a number of jobs raised but none of these appear in the excel document that seems to be the repair record for the property.
This lack of records is concerning and a serious failing on the part of the landlord. Clear record keeping and management is a core function of a repairs service, not only so that a landlord can provide information to the Ombudsman when requested, but also because this assists the landlord in fulfilling its repair obligations. Accurate and complete records ensure that the landlord has a good understanding of the age and condition of the structure and its fittings within the property, enable outstanding repairs to be monitored and managed, and enable the landlord to provide accurate information to residents. Staff should be aware of a landlord’s record management policy and procedures and adhere to these, as should contractors.
While the resident has not provided evidence that supports her version of events, the Ombudsman would not necessarily expect residents to be able to do so, not having access to the resources and systems that a professional body such as the landlord has.

Windows

The landlord detailed several repairs in its 1 April 2021 complaint response. In relation to the windows, these were:
1. 2 December 2019 – job raised following report that the window was not closing and required repair. The order was to carry out any repairs and leave in good working order, reported as complete on 10 December 2019.
2. 30 December 2019 – job raised following report that the sash windows were uneven and rotten with the catches falling off. The job was cancelled because the contractor could not access the property.
3. 21 February 2020 – job raised following report that seven timber framed box sash windows had rotten frames, causing rainwater to seep in and a draught. The order was cancelled because of a scheduled appointment with a surveyor to discuss the issue.
4. 19 March 2020 – job raised to ease and adjust all sash windows in the property, cancelled because of the COVID-19 pandemic. The job was completed on 15 July 2020.
5. No dates provided – job was raised after report of the window letting in water during rainfall. The contractor endeavoured to attend the job but resident informed it that the window was beyond repair and in need of replacement. Consequently, the order was cancelled.
6. 12 March 2021 – order raised to ease, adjust and carry out required repairs to all the windows in the property. The order was cancelled because of a lack of access.
The information provided here goes some way to demonstrating that the landlord did take action in response to the resident’s concerns about the windows. It arranged an inspection of the windows in response to her 2 February 2020 request for this, which was reasonable and shows that it was taking her concerns seriously. Having said this, the Ombudsman would have expected to see contemporaneous records that support the landlord’s response, such as the surveyor’s report from the 10 March 2020 inspection, and the original repair records.
As there is no contemporaneous record of the findings of the inspection or what was agreed, the landlord’s subsequent position that the windows did not require replacement is unsupported. Clearly, the resident’s understanding of the outcome of the inspection was that they did need to be replaced and she was expecting this to happen. It is possible that the surveyor referenced the Capital Works programme, given that the resident specifically mentioned this in her follow up email of 13 March 2020. She again raised this in her formal complaints in July and August 2020, referencing the ‘window upgrade’ she was expecting as per the surveyor’s visit in March 2020.
It would have been appropriate for the landlord to have confirmed whether or not the windows were going to be upgraded/added to the Capital Works list, so as to better manage the resident’s expectations. Instead, it provided no comment on the matter until its formal complaint response of 8 January 2021, nearly a year after the surveyor’s inspection and after both the MP and this Service had become involved.
Even then, the landlord did not confirm whether or not the windows were being replaced or acknowledge the resident’s clear belief that it had been agreed that this was going to happen via the Capital Works programme. Instead, it said that the Capital Works team would contact her when they were ‘in the area’. Again, the landlord failed to manage the resident’s expectations. It was not until the 1 April 2021 complaint response that the landlord stated that the surveyor had found that the windows did not require replacement (which as mentioned above, is not supported by a copy of the surveyor’s findings), and that no capital works to replace them were planned.
Overall, there were failings in the landlord’s handling of this matter, and there is no record to support the conclusion that the windows did not require replacement. Given the resident’s repeated reports of the poor functioning and condition of the windows, the landlord needs to satisfy itself and this Service that its position on the windows is correct. As such, an order is made to remedy the matter below.

Heating system

The landlord’s 1 April 2021 complaint response also detailed several jobs relating to the heating system, as follows:
1. No date – job raised following report of radiator in the bedroom as faulty and leaking, reported as completed on 6 January 2020.
2. 23 December 2019 – job raised following report of total loss of hot water, completed on 24 December 2019.
3. 27 December 2019 – job raised following report of damaged radiators in the property including jammed knobs, cancelled because it was a duplicate order.
4. 9 January 2020 – job raised following a report of intermittent hot water in the property, reported as complete on 17 January 2020.
5. 13 March 2020 – job raised following report that the small radiator in the living room was not coming on, completed on 16 March 2020.
6. 16 March 2020 – job raised following a call from the resident stating that the boiler was missing a part and that it did not filter sludge from the system, completed on 14 April 2020.
7. 3 August 2020 – job raised for the boiler to be inspected and any necessary repairs carried out. The contractor attended and noted that the resident informed it that no repair was required because the boiler was working normally.
8. 27 August 2020 – job raised following a report that the boiler was causing the radiators to clog up and block, and that the heating was performing poorly. The contractor noted that the resident had been advised that the boiler was old and clogging up the radiators because of the lack of a Magnaclean. The contractor was unable to identify who advised the resident of this. Order was completed on 1 September 2020.
As with the window repairs, this information demonstrates that the landlord did respond to the resident’s reports of issues with the heating system. However, whereas the landlord has suggested that an unknown third party advised the resident on the issue of the Magnaclean, the resident has stated that the contractor advised her of this. There is insufficient evidence to confirm either account although the resident first raised this issue on 16 March 2020, the same day that the contractor attended to the job raised for the radiator in the living room. The landlord then raised a job in relation to the Magnaclean which it states was ‘completed’ on 14 April 2020, but there is no detail of what took place.
The resident also referenced the Magnaclean in her July and August 2020 complaints, but although the landlord made enquiries about the issue with its gas team and received responses, the information wasn’t passed on to the resident until January 2021. This letter was then confusing, as it stated that the resident had been advised about the Magnaclean by a third party, but also (understood to be an administrative error), that advice about this was “…issued as a requirement by Lambeth heating contractors” suggesting that its heating contractors had said that Magnaclean was needed. Indeed, this is how the resident read it, as she noted in her 23 January 2021 email to the landlord that the lack of a Magnaclean had been identified.
The landlord stated in its April 2021 response that there was no evidence to show that the lack of Magnaclean was affecting the performance of the boiler, but it is not clear from this or the contractor’s 11 November 2020 email whether or not the matter had actually been investigated, or if it was assumed this would not be an issue due to the boiler only being five years old. The landlord said that Magnaclean was not mandatory, but this does not fully address the resident’s concerns that the system was not operating correctly.
Further, this letter said that the contractor had attempted to attend the reported heating issues in the property between 16 December 2019 and 23 January 2021 but had been unable to do so due to a lack of response to the contact made to try and arrange this. It then went on to contradict this statement via the list of jobs raised as detailed at paragraph 53, none of which record any issues with obtaining responses/access. No other evidence has been provided that supports the landlord’s contention that the heating issue was not addressed due to a lack of response.
The landlord stated that for the six-week period in question (21 December 2019 to 22 January 2021) it was only one radiator in the bedroom that was not working. The job details as set out above do support this statement, and there is no indication from these that the entire property was without heating for six weeks. Neither did the resident dispute this in her reply to the 1 April 2021 complaint response.
Overall, there is insufficient evidence to show that the landlord has fully investigated the resident’s concern that the heating system is not functioning correctly. In addition, the evidence that is available suggests that the resident was without a working radiator in her bedroom for a number of weeks and that this was not due to contact/access issues. To remedy these matters, orders are made below.

Floors

It is not clear from the information available when the issue with the floors was first raised. The landlord’s 1 April 2021 complaint response details three jobs relating to this:
1. 16 March 2020 – order raised to secure loose noisy floorboards. The contractor noted that the resident wanted to speak to the surveyor about soundproofing the rooms.
2. 15 October 2020 – job raised for the removal and refixing of floorboards in response to a report that the floorboards within the whole property were in poor condition. The contractor could not gain access and a card was left.
3. 25 February 2021 – job raised after the resident reported defective floorboards. It was noted that the contractor could not access the property and a card was left. The job was cancelled.
It is understood that the 16 March 2020 job was raised following the surveyor’s 10 March 2020 inspection. It can be seen from the resident’s 13 March 2020 email to the landlord that she understood that the planned works for the floors were securing the floorboards to stop them squeaking, and for plywood to be fitted throughout the whole flat. This differs to the landlord’s record of the job raised, which was to only secure floorboards. The resident’s email also shows that she had made enquiries about soundproofing.
These flooring works were put on hold due to Covid-19 as they were not classed as an emergency. This was not unreasonable in itself, and most landlords at that time were only carrying out emergency works. But it is unclear why, in response to the resident’s request that the works be treated as an emergency, the landlord said that it needed a surveyor to attend and inspect the floors again, especially as it then explained that surveyors were not carrying out inspections due to Covid-19. This was not a very helpful response.
In her July and August 2020 complaints the resident raised the issue of outstanding repair to the floors which meant she had still been unable to lay floor coverings in her home, and an outstanding request for soundproofing. The resident reiterated in an email to the landlord on 28 August 2020 that she wanted soundproofing to be provided, and that this issue was delaying the floor repairs.
In her 9 September 2020 email to her MP about the matter, she said the works had not gone ahead because she needed to speak with a surveyor about the works and materials used. She said that no one had replied to her about this. The Ombudsman understands therefore, that the landlord may have attempted to carry out the works at this point, but the resident had declined pending a response on the soundproofing. There is no evidence of the landlord responding to such a request.
There is further evidence of the resident contacting the landlord about the matter in her 19 October 2020 email, in which she said that she had contacted the repairs service about the job for the floors, and asked about purchasing mineral wool to be used when carrying out these works. There is no indication that the landlord responded to this.
The landlord did not respond to these issues until January 2021. In its response, it said that appointments had been made to carry out floor repairs but had been cancelled or amended at the resident’s request. The jobs listed in the landlord’s subsequent 1 April 2021 complaint response do not give any information on any appointments being made, so it is unclear when these were. However, this does accord with the resident’s own account which suggests that she declined/rescheduled works pending an outcome to the soundproofing request. The January 2021 response stated that the landlord did not provide sound insulation, and the landlord soon after confirmed that it would give the resident permission to carry out such works herself.
As with the window replacement issues, it would have been appropriate for the landlord to have managed the resident’s expectations sooner about the possibility of soundproofing.
The resident has submitted recordings to this Service that she states demonstrate high levels of noise transference in the property. This Service is limited in the extent to which it can consider audio/video evidence, as it is not possible to determine exactly where and when recordings were made, and the Ombudsman is not qualified to say whether the recordings constitute a high or unreasonable level of noise transference. However, the information that is available does show that when the resident submitted these recordings to the landlord, for example in March 2020, it took no action to respond to the evidence submitted or address the resident’s concerns.
The landlord’s 1 April 2021 response did not address the resident’s concerns about the outstanding repairs required to the floor. She had set out clearly in her 23 January and 25 February 2021 emails her understanding of the matter; that contractors had attended and found that much more work was required than had been raised, and that the landlord needed to raise a new order for the more extensive works. The landlord did not address this issue at all, and neither did it mention the outstanding inspection of the neighbour’s property which it had previously said would take place once Covid-19 restrictions had eased. Instead, it directed the resident to make a noise complaint, which was promptly directed back to the repairs team when she did so.
The landlord has not provided a copy of the 27 April 2021 surveyor’s report, or any detail on the outcome of this. It did however provide a copy of the structural engineer’s report which was commissioned as “structural investigation to floor and ceiling joists and timbers between dwellings” due to excessive noise transference. This concluded from an inspection carried out on 7 July 2021 that there were no structural issues. It was noted that no sound insulation was in place, but that this would have been in line with building regulations at the time the property was converted. While it is understandable that the resident would like the landlord to provide soundproofing to the property, it is not obliged to do so, as it is not required to retrospectively bring older properties that met building regulations at the time up to the standard of new building regulations.
In light of this evidence, the Ombudsman is satisfied that there were no structural issues for the landlord to address regarding the floors/noise transference. However, the works that are required for the floors remain outstanding, and according to the resident, the works agreed in June 2021 were more extensive than those originally raised and that the landlord has now passed on to its new contractors. The landlord has not submitted any evidence on this matter (such as reports from its contractors, details of its surveyor’s findings, or information on the works raised in June 2021), and has not responded to the issue via its complaints process. This lack of evidence, combined with the resident’s account, means that it is not possible to find that the landlord has reasonably satisfied itself that the works it has recently raised are appropriate to address the repair.
To remedy this situation and to ensure that it is made clear to all what works are required, and when these will be carried out, orders are made below.

Pest control

The landlord did not address the resident’s concerns about rodents in the property until its April 2021 complaint response, in which set out that the resident should contact the pest control team. This was inappropriate as the landlord missed the opportunity to clarify applicable responsibilities for the council as landlord, its Environmental Health department, and the resident. It is not clear that the landlord took any reasonable steps to satisfy itself that rodents weren’t accessing the property through parts of the building which required repair.

Complaint handling

The landlord provided no response to the resident’s July and August 2020 formal complaints, despite acknowledging these. The resident had to involve both her MP and this Service before a response was elicited from the landlord. This was a significant failing that would have been frustrating and time consuming for the resident.
While the January 2021 stage one response did seek to address the resident’s concerns there were shortcomings, for example it did not confirm whether or not the windows were being replaced, and its comments about the Magnaclean were confusing. Further, it did not address the resident’s concerns about pest control issues even though they had been raised in the resident’s complaint of July 2020.
The April 2021 stage two response took over two months to provide, and while this again did seek to address some of the complaints raised, it did not deal with the main concerns about the floor. It also declined to address the pest control issue, incorrectly stating that this had not been raised in the original complaint, when in fact it had been raised in the resident’s July and August 2020 complaints.
Overall, the landlord found no failings in its handling of the repairs, but its conclusion is not supported by evidence. As the landlord found no failings, neither did it ‘learn from outcomes’ and take any action to improve its service. Having said this, the Ombudsman is aware through its communications with the landlord outside of this specific case that it has committed to radically redesign its repair and maintenance services to provide better quality services, and that it from 12 July 2021 had ten new contractors and a new in-house communal repairs team. In addition, from September 2021 the repairs section of the housing online portal was launched, enabling residents to raise repairs and view updates on these.
The changes implemented mean that the landlord has better service and monitoring and the ability to track work and contractors though improved ICT systems. Its Contact Centre will book appointments for all jobs and residents will receive a series of texts confirming their appointment, with a reminder 24 hours beforehand, an ‘on my way’ text, a text with a link to a tracker showing their operatives location on a map, and a job completion text with a link to a satisfaction survey. These improvements should help the landlord avoid the failings identified in this case in future.
In addition, since October 2020 the landlord has been conducting a project to look at its complaints case management, with improvements such as a casework system upgrade to ensure compliance, and reporting that allows for daily performance management and aggregation of trends. The Housing Complaints Team was being restructured to improve the way housing complaints are handled. However, it is not clear whether these planned changes and restructuring have taken place.
Finally, while the landlord did offer the resident compensation for the complaint handling delays in an effort to ‘put things right’, this was insufficient to remedy the time, trouble and frustration the failings caused. Therefore, an order is made to resolve this.

Determination (decision)

In line with section 54 of the Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s:
1. Response to the reports of repairs at the property.
2. Response to reports of a pest control issue.
3. Handling of the resident’s complaint.
4. Record keeping.

Reasons

The landlord did attend to the reports of issues with the windows, however, it did not manage the resident’s expectations about their replacement, and has not provided evidence to support its view that they do not require replacement. Similarly, it has attended to repair the heating system, but its response to the issue of the Magnaclean has not been clear and is unsupported by evidence. Its reasons for declining to offer the resident additional compensation for the weeks she was without a radiator is also not supported by evidence and is contradicted in the 1 April 2021 letter which details no issues with contact/access.
Repair of the floors at the property remain outstanding. It is acknowledged that in part delays were caused by the Covid-19 pandemic, and that in declining/rescheduling appointments, the resident’s own actions have also had an impact. However, the landlord failed to address the resident’s concern that more extensive works were required, and notably did not refute them. It also failed to address her queries about soundproofing in a timely manner.
It took the landlord six months to respond to the initial complaint, and the stage two response was also delayed by some margin outside of the complaint policy timeframes.
Overall, these issues have led to a great deal of time, trouble and frustration for the resident, who has described the impact this has had on her day to day life, and the difficulties she has living at her property due to cold and draughts.

Orders

Within two weeks of the date of this report, the landlord must:
1. Before carrying out the order below in relation to the floors: Write to the resident setting out any options available for soundproofing and whether she will need to cover the entire cost of this herself, and whether these works could be included as part of the overall floor repairs, or if she would need to arrange this separately. Confirm with the resident how she wishes to proceed.
Within one month of the date of this report, the landlord must:
1. Once the soundproofing matter has been confirmed: Carry out the works to the floors that the resident has stated were agreed with the subcontractor and approved on 24 June 2021 or, if this information is not available, carry out a full survey of the floor, producing a report on the findings to detail the works that are required, and an estimated completion date for these. If soundproofing works are to be incorporated (even if at the resident’s own expense), these should also be detailed. A copy to be sent to the resident and this Service. All works to be completed within the estimated completion date.
2. Inspect the neighbour’s property as per the landlord’s email dated 6 May 2020, in relation to the resident’s reports of excessive noise transference, and carry out any identified repairs.
3. Conduct a full survey of the windows to assess whether these are functional and weathertight, or are in need of repair, or if they require replacing. A report on the findings, to detail any works that are necessary, and an estimated completion date for these, should be produced with a copy sent to the resident and this Service. All works to be completed within the estimated completion date.
4. Carry out a test of the boiler and radiators to determine whether the heating system is functioning as it should. A report on the findings, to detail any works that are necessary, and an estimated completion date for these, should be produced with a copy sent to the resident and this Service. All works to be completed within the estimated completion date.
5. Determine with the resident whether the pest issue persists, and if so, provide guidance on applicable obligations, what action it will take (for example, addressing any repair issue that is allowing access) and when this will happen.
6. Review its record keeping practices for responsive and planned repairs and maintenance to ensure that accurate and accessible records are kept and maintained, both of works raised and completed, and of resident contact. As part of its review, the landlord should consider whether a record management policy and staff training is required. The landlord should write to the Ombudsman confirming this has been completed and detailing the outcome.
7. Review the complaint handling in this case in line with existing processes, and update the Ombudsman on improvements to these processes which would mitigate the risk of a repeat of the complaint handling failings identified in this report. It should also establish whether any further improvements are required.
8. Pay the resident a total of £1,200 to remedy the time, trouble and frustration she has experienced in relation to the failures identified in the landlord’s handling of the repair and pest control issues, and in its handling of the formal complaint. The £110 offered in the 1 April 2021 response can be deducted from this amount if already paid. The resident should be aware that if she has arrears on her rent account this may be offset against them.

Recommendations

The structural engineer’s report recommended that a plumber should investigate the water system within the property, with a view to eliminating or reducing noise from the “water hammer”. The landlord should follow this recommendation.