The new improved webform is online now! Residents and representatives can access the form online today.

London Borough of Barnet (202202606)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202202606

London Borough of Barnet

4 September 2023

 

Our approach

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

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

The complaint

  1. The complaint is about the landlord’s:
    1. handling of repairs to the resident’s front door;
    2. response to the resident’s request to renew the bathroom;
    3. complaint’s handling.

Background

  1. The resident is a secure tenant at the property of the landlord. The landlord is a local authority. The resident has been represented by her daughter in this matter as she has vulnerabilities.
  2. The resident has reported issues with her front door for approximately five years. In 2021, she reported on three occasions that the door became stuck and she struggled to open it. On 2 March 2022, the resident made a formal complaint that although she had repeatedly reported that her door was draughty and kept sticking, the landlord had failed to undertake a lasting repair. She also complained that her bathroom did not have a proper shower and was in a poor state. As a resolution, the resident wanted both the front door and the bathroom to be replaced.
  3. The landlord did not respond formally to the resident’s complaint, but replied to her query stating that it had raised an inspection of the door for 23 March 2022. It explained that her bathroom was not due for renewal in the next five years. The landlord asked the resident to explain what she was specifically dissatisfied with, so that it could arrange for any applicable repairs. It stated that if the shower was not suiting her needs, the resident should contact its occupational health (OT) department.
  4. The landlord attended on 23 March 2022, and found that the door was water damaged and arranged for follow on works to replace the door. The resident reported on 31 March 2022 that the bathroom ceiling was cracked and she was concerned it contained asbestos. She stated that the tiling was loose, and the shower was not fit for purpose. She later added that the toilet did not flush properly, and the bathroom door was broken and did not shut. The landlord arranged for an appointment on 13 April 2022 to repair the loose tiles and seal around the bath. However, the resident stated she wanted a full bathroom renewal and cancelled the appointment.
  5. The landlord has explained that its operatives attended on 9 and 26 May 2022, to repair the door, but that they could not gain access. The resident has explained that the operatives stated that they would be undertaking repairs to the door, therefore she was reluctant to allow the works to continue, as she wanted a replacement rather than a repair.
  6. After contact from this service on 7 September 2022, the landlord attended to inspect the front door and bathroom on 14 September 2022. The landlord sent its stage one response on 21 September 2022. It explained that it had assessed the door and concluded that it did not need replacing. However, it acknowledged that the advice it had originally given to the resident was conflicting. It explained that it had arranged for its major works team to assess the bathroom on 21 September 2022, to ascertain if it was suitable to be added to its bathroom replacement program.
  7. The resident escalated her complaint on 4 October 2022. She was unhappy with the landlord’s communication, and stated that she had not been given enough notice of the surveyors appointment. The resident stated that she wanted the door replaced, as per the landlord original recommendation. She also wanted the bathroom to be replaced.
  8. The landlord sent its stage two response on 8 November 2022. The landlord recognised that it had failed to undertake lasting repairs to the door. It also acknowledged that it had caused confusion over if the door needed to be repaired or replaced. The landlord offered to undertake repairs to the door and to fit a draft excluder. The landlord stated that it was happy to arrange for another bathroom inspection to ascertain if it could be added to its planned works scheme. The landlord offered the resident £250 compensation, in recognition of her inconvenience due to its miscommunication.
  9. In her complaint to this service, the resident remains dissatisfied with the delays to her repairs. The resident has explained to the landlord that her bathroom was inspected by its OT department, who concluded that the majority needed replacing. However, the landlord has no record of the OT’s visit.

Assessment

Front door

  1. As per its repair policy, the landlord is obligated to keep the external structure of the property in good repair and keep it wind and watertight. This includes the external door and doorframe. The policy notes that ‘responsive repairs’ are works that need to be completed but are not considered an immediate risk. These will be completed within 15 days of the order being raised.
  2. The landlord is a social landlord and does need to balance its costs with its obligations to the resident. The Ombudsman considers it reasonable for a landlord to seek to carry out a repair if possible, before considering a full replacement.
  3. When the resident first raised reports of issues with her front door, the landlord would be expected to attend and ascertain if its repairs service could remedy the issue. However, after attending on several occasions, the landlord would be expected to consider if the number of visits it was undertaking was reasonable and proportionate. Under its tenancy agreement, the landlord is obligated to keep the front door well maintained and in a good state of repair. The landlord continuously making short term repairs to the door would not constitute keeping the door in a good state of repair.
  4. The resident complained on 2 March 2022 that she had reported her door a number of times, but had not received a lasting repair. It is clear from the evidence provided that the resident has been reporting issues with her front door for a number of years. The landlord should therefore have assessed its repair records to clarify how many times it had attended and if another repair to the door was sustainable. It was made clear to the landlord in the resident’s complaint that she was a vulnerable person as she is elderly and has several health conditions, which the landlord should have considered as part of its response.
  5. The landlord did attend to assess the door within the 15 working day timescale stated above, raising the inspection 10 March 2022 and attending on 23 March 2022. The landlord concluded that the door needed to be replaced, and communicated this with the resident on 13 April 2022. This therefore raised the resident’s expectations that the door would be replaced. However, the landlord’s operatives then attended to repair the door, rather than replace it on 9 and 26 May 2022. The resident thought that the operatives had attended with incorrect instructions and declined the works.
  6. The landlord is entitled to act based on expert advice and can change its decision if this is based on a qualified recommendation. However, the landlord would be expected to communicate the changes to the resident and manage their expectations effectively. The landlorddid not communicate that it would no longer be replacing the door to the resident prior to its attendance in May 2022.The landlord also did not undertake a further inspection to support its conclusion that the door no longer needed replacing. It has not provided an explanation to this service for its change in opinion at this point. The landlord’s lack of communication meant it failed to manage the resident’s expectations, leading to her distress and inconvenience.
  7. After intervention from this service, the landlord attended again on 14 September 2022 to re-inspect the door. It concluded that the door was sound and did not need to be replaced. Again, the landlord is entitled to listen to its expert’s advice; however, there is no evidence to suggest that the landlord considered the long-term history of the door issues. Additionally, the landlord’s repair policy states that it will act sensitively towards the diverse needs of individuals, and where practicable will take into consideration additional support needs where a resident may be considered to be vulnerable.
  8. The resident repeatedly reported to the landlord that she struggled to open the door due to her various health and age-related vulnerabilities. In 2021, the resident reported three times to the landlord that her door was sticking. The resident has explained to this service that the door can become stuck and that she is concerned about the health and safety repercussion of being left in a home without a front access point. Although the landlord’s operatives may not have struggled to open the door, it would have been expected to act in line with its own repairs policy and consider the needs of this specific resident. It would not be appropriate to allow the resident to continuously have concerns about gaining access through her front door. It is also concerning from a health and safety point of view, as in the event of an emergency, the resident may not be able to quickly evacuate her home. The landlord’s lack of consideration to this specific resident’s additional needs or vulnerabilities was a failing in the circumstances.
  9. In its initial complaint response, the landlord acted appropriately by apologising for its conflicting advice regarding the replacement of the front door. However, it placed emphasis on the resident having refused access for the repair works, rather than taking responsibility for its own lack of communication and updates.
  10. In its second response, the landlord acted appropriately by acknowledging that its team had failed to consider the entire repair history of the door. It apologised and stated that it was undertaking training so that these basic steps would no longer be overlooked in future. The landlord also acknowledged its lack of communication to the resident, apologising for the inconvenience caused to her. However, the landlord reiterated its decision to not replace the door, without considering the resident’s vulnerabilities. Despite stating that it was encouraging its team to consider repair histories, it offered to repair the door again, and to review the repair in a further six months. This was not appropriate, as the resident had already been reporting the door for several years.
  11. The landlord has informed this service that the door was replaced on 19 January 2023, 10 months after the resident complained about it sticking and being beyond repair. Although it was appropriate for the landlord to offer the resident £250 compensation for her inconvenience and its lack of communication, it is the Ombudsman’s opinion that this amount does not fully address the landlord’s continued failings in this case. A finding of maladministration has therefore been made and an order for £450 compensation has been made to reflect the impact caused to the resident. This replaces the landlord’s offer of £250.

Bathroom

  1. According to the ‘decent home standard’, a dwelling is considered not to meet its criterion if it lacks three or more of the following facilities: a kitchen which is 20 years old or less, a kitchen with adequate space and layout, a bathroom which is 30 years old or less, an appropriately located bathroom, or adequate external noise insulation. Landlords can use this standard to help assess the age and condition of its properties’ facilities.
  2. The resident has stated that her bathroom was last fitted in 1979 and was in a poor condition. Once the landlord received the resident’s report on 2 March 2022, it would be expected to assess the bathroom, to ascertain if its age and condition warranted it to be replaced, or if further repairs were necessary. The landlord acted appropriately by enquiring internally if the bathroom was due to be replaced. It communicated to the resident on 10 March 2022 that it was not due for a replacement for another five years. It asked the resident to detail the issues she was experiencing, so that it could raise a repair for any outstanding issues.
  3. After the resident listed the issues with the bathroom on 31 March 2022, the landlord raised a repair within the 15 working day timescales set out above. It arranged to repair the resident’s tiles and to seal around the bath on 13 April 2022. It also contacted its health and safety team on the same day, to arrange an inspection of the ceiling to check for asbestos. After an inspection in May 2022, (the landlord has not provided the exact date) the team found that the ceiling did not contain asbestos.
  4. It was reasonable of the landlord to try and fulfil its repair obligations by undertaking works to the resident’s bathroom. While the bathroom was older than that noted in the decent homes standard, this alone would not mean the property failed this standard. Given the age of the bathroom, however, in addition to enquiring about repairs, it should have also carried out an inspection to satisfy itself that the timeframe for the replacement was still appropriate.
  5. The landlord waited until contact from this service in September 2022 to assess the resident’s bathroom for replacement. This was not reasonable, as the landlord should have been considering if the facilities provided were appropriate for the resident after her contact in March 2022, rather than six months later. The landlord undertook an initial inspection of the bathroom on 14 September 2022. It arranged for a further appointment on 21 September 2022, to assess if the bathroom should be added to its planned renewal program.
  6. However, there is no evidence to suggest that the landlord informed the resident of the appointment prior to the surveyor’s visit on 21 September 2022. The resident has stated that she was dissatisfied with the lack of warning. This is not reasonable, as according to landlord’s tenancy agreement, the landlord is required to give reasonable notice when it needs to access the resident’s property, which should be a minimum of a least 24 hours’ notice. Its failure to warn the resident needlessly prolonged the process of assessing the bathroom, which is a failing in the circumstances.
  7. In its final response to the resident in November 2022, the landlord again offered for its major works team to inspect the bathroom, which was appropriate in the circumstances. Nevertheless, its initial failure to carry out an inspection to determine if the bathroom remained suitable for a five years, and its failure to provide advanced warning of its subsequent inspection amounted to service failure in the circumstances. An amount of £100 compensation has been ordered to reflect the resident’s directress and inconvenience.
  8. The resident has stated that she contacted her local authority’s OT department independently, who had inspected the bathroom and concluded that various aspects need replacing. It is no evident that the landlord has received the OT department’s report, and so a recommendation had been made below that it seek a copy of the report from the resident, and provide its position on the recommendations in the report.

Complaints handling

  1. The landlord’s complaint policy states that on receiving a complaint, it will listen and put things right as quickly as possible. The landlord will log the complaint and assign it to an appropriate officer. It will then acknowledge the complaint within two working days. The landlord will send its stage one response within 10 working days, if the resident remains dissatisfied, they can escalate their complaint to stage two of the landlord’s complaint procedure. The landlord will then send its stage two response within 10 working days.
  2. The resident complained on 2 March 2022. Although the landlord did respond to the resident and answer her queries, it did not provide her with a stage one formal response. A resident does not have to use the word ‘complaint’ for the issue to be treated as such, where it is evident that the contents of their query is complaining about the landlord’s provision of service.
  3. After contact from this service on 7 September 2022, the landlord responded on 21 September 2022. This was nearly seven months after the resident initially complained. The resident escalated her complaint on 4 October 2022. The landlord responded over a month later on 8 November 2022, again exceeding the timescales set out in its own complaints policy. The landlord’s failure to raise the resident complaint formally was not reasonable, as it made the entire complaint more protracted, inconveniencing both the landlord and the resident. This amounted to maladministration in the circumstances for which an order for £200 compensation has been made to reflect the impact on the resident.

Determination (decision)

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in its handling of repairs to the resident’s front door.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure by the landlord in its response to the resident’s request to renew the bathroom.
  3. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord for its complaints handling.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

  1. The Ombudsman orders the landlord to pay compensation of £750, comprising:
    1. £450 for any distress and inconvenience caused to the resident by the failures identified in relation to its response about the door;
    2. £100 for any distress and inconvenience caused by the failures identified in relation to its response about the bathroom;
    3. £200 for its ineffective complaints handling.
  2. This replaces the landlord’s previous offer of £250. This amount must be paid within four weeks of the date of this determination.

Recommendations

  1. The landlord is to liaise with the resident and request the OT report completed after the inspection to the bathroom. The landlord must then provide its position on all recommended works to the property.