London Borough of Brent (202216303)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202216303

London Borough of Brent

21 March 2024

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:
1. Handling of repairs to the kitchen and bathroom in the property.
2. Communication regarding planned improvement works in the property.
3. Handling of repairs to a garden wall.
4. Complaint handling.

Background

The resident is a secure tenant of the landlord. She lives in a 4 bedroom house with her family, which included her 4 young grandchildren. She has lived at the address since 1996. She has several vulnerabilities that the landlord is aware of.
The resident contacted the landlord in 2019 after there had been a leak into the property from a neighbouring home. The landlord inspected the whole property on 1 August 2019 and scheduled plastering works to the living room, stairs and bathroom.
The records are unclear when the resident contacted the landlord afterwards. However, they do show that she complained about the condition of her kitchen, bathroom and WC. The landlord replied on 24 October 2019, but recorded the report as if it were made on behalf of her neighbour. The resident replied the same day and highlighted the error, but there was no response from the landlord.
The landlord returned to inspect the property on 15 January 2020. It recorded that some decoration was outstanding and plastering works were required. The following repairs were raised:
1. Refix the pan and renew the sealant to 1st floor toilet (WC).
2. Replace the rear garden boundary fencing.
The resident stated that she experienced several difficulties with her health which caused delays to contact the landlord again. This, combined with the global COVID-19 pandemic, meant she did not pursue repairs to her home.
On 2 February 2022, the resident complained to the landlord. She said that she had no response to her previous reports and felt that repairs were urgent and not resolved by the landlord. She listed the following repairs:
1. The kitchen cabinets and flooring were “outworn”, the tap was damaged with no access to hot water.
2. The kitchen wall was “badly damaged” with large cracks on the side of the doorframe “due to previous poor workmanship”.
3. The bathroom was “worn-out” with “water damage” on bath panel.
4. The bath and toilet had discoloured, with fine cracks.
5. The (2-pin) electric socket was not working.
6. The mirror was discoloured to a grey tint.
7. There were gaps in the side floor panels.
8. The bathroom radiator had rusted.
9. The first floor toilet was worn with an inadequately fitting toilet seat and a sink that was too large for the room, making it difficult to open the door fully “due to poor workmanship”.
10. The second floor bedroom door frame was cracked and left a gap between it and the wall.
11. The door handles throughout the property were “weak and over flexible”.
12. The garden wall had fallen and left “large sections of cement sticking out the grass”. The garden steps had been “embedded into the soil”.
The resident felt the property required refurbishment. She said the last refurbishment was done in 2001 and she expected that work should be done every 20 years. She wanted the landlord to conduct the repairs “as a matter of urgency”.
The landlord inspected the property on 1 March 2022. It felt the resident wanted a new kitchen and bathroom because her neighbour had them in 2019. It recorded the kitchen to be in a good condition and well maintained. It agreed to review if refurbishment works were due. It said it was unlikely to replace a kitchen because the leak had not caused substantial damage. It asked the resident if the leak had damaged the kitchen and she said it had not. It listed the following related repair orders:
1. Renew 2 kitchen base unit doors and 1 drawer.
2. Replace toilet seat in the WC.
3. Renew skirting around the door to the bathroom. Replace silicone to the vinyl flooring. Overhaul the extractor fan and replace the bath panel.
4. Reinstate the garden fence and rebuild the brick wall, removing any debris.
The landlord issued its stage 1 response on 2 March 2022. It listed the repairs set out in the complaint. It said:
1. It recognised that there had been an error when it recorded repairs against the neighbour’s property.
2. The refurbishment programmes for the kitchen and bathroom were not due.
3. A surveyor was scheduled to inspect the property and garden on 11 March 2022. They would determine if the landlord needed to “bring the refurbishment works forwards”. Once the survey was complete it would update the resident.
4. It shared the findings with colleagues to highlight the need to maintain regular contact and act in a timely manner.
On 2 April 2022, the resident asked for her complaint to be escalated. She said that a surveyor had inspected the property on 18 March 2022. They provided a list of repairs that were required. It included works to the kitchen, bathroom, doors, fencing, and the garden wall. She was unhappy with the outcome of the inspection and her complaint. She felt the surveyor:
1. Did not identify disrepair beyond the scope of the complaint. They “dramatically minimised the condition of the property”.
2. Was satisfied with the superficial appearance of the kitchen but failed to examine the quality and interior of the cabinets.
3. Failed to acknowledge the quality of the kitchen flooring.
4. Failed to acknowledge the extent of the damage to the bathroom.
5. Did not recognise the extent of issues to the flooring in the WC. The flooring had “large gaps” behind the toilet, the wall had cracks in the wooden panels due to a previous leak.
The resident asked for a different surveyor to inspect the property. She felt that the landlord had treated her unfairly. It had conducted refurbishment works for her neighbour when the resident made a complaint in 2019. When it inspected her property it would not conduct refurbishment works. She wanted an “in-depth explanation” as to how the same complaint can provide two “contradictory outcomes”. She gave a list of documents related to the repair that she wanted the landlord to provide.
The landlord issued its stage 2 response on 11 May 2022. It set out a chronology of events that broadly covered those above. It went on to say:
1. It was “regrettable that an inspection” of the property was not conducted in 2019. The resident “could however have pursued this further at the time”. The “evidence indicated” that the resident was “not significantly disadvantaged due to this oversight”.
2. Work conducted at the neighbour’s property would have been done following inspection.
3. The survey on 18 March 2022 did not find “extensive work to be necessary”.
4. It planned to review the kitchens in the resident’s area in 2022. It would do the same for bathrooms and WCs in 2023. This was an estimate and subject to change.
5. The resident had asked for a senior surveyor on 11 and 22 April 2022. The landlord said it would arrange for them to contact her within 1 week of the stage 2 response. Any agreed internal works would be arranged after that visit. They would be separate to the refurbishment programmes.
6. It apologised for the “delays and oversights” that occurred in progressing work to the property. It offered £200 compensation.
The resident remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s response and contacted the Ombudsman on 21 October 2022. She described the issues with repair and the landlord’s response. She said that the landlord sent contractors to complete some of the repairs:
1. On 24 June 2022, the contactor repaired the kitchen taps, the toilet seat, bath panel and attached the kitchen unit doors. The bath panel came loose and “fell off again” around 3 weeks later. She said that 2 of the 3 kitchen units fell out of place and screws would not fit securely.
2. On 25 July 2022, the contractor replaced the kitchen tap handle with one that fell off the following day.
3. On 8 August 2022, the contractor installed a sink in the WC. She felt they did not install it correctly. They failed to apply sealant properly around the top and none at the base. They applied some expanding foam to the pipes, then removed it shortly afterwards damaging the screws holding the pipes and making a mess. They behaved unprofessionally and made “advances towards” her relatives. She had to ask the contractor to send the operative away.
4. On 9 September 2022, a contractor was booked to rebuild the garden wall, stairs and remove debris. No one attended the appointment. She felt that the garden was “extremely hazardous” and would not allow her grandchildren outside.
5. On 26 September 2022, the resident received a call from a sub-contractor. They asked her why they were going to the property. They did not attend and she had no further contact from them.
The resident said that she felt the landlord failed to follow up on her concerns about the unprofessional behaviour of the contractor. She felt the landlord had failed to acknowledge disrepair within the property. It had “actively and deliberately” overlooked the initial error and were “attempting to plaster over the cracks”. She wanted the landlord to conduct refurbishment works in the property.
The resident said that the issues with repairs had caused injuries to her and her grandchildren. She provided records from health professionals that show:
1. On 16 May 2022, she suffered a head injury at the property that resulted in a cut below her eye, requiring stitches. She said that this was a result of a cupboard door falling onto her face in the kitchen.
2. On 19 December 2022, she sought medical assistance after falling over the “uneven floor” in the kitchen. She was referred to a fracture clinic for treatment.
3. Although the date is not provided, the evidence showed that one of her grandchildren had a cabinet fall on their foot. It caused injury and required surgical intervention.

Assessment and findings

Scope of the investigation

During the complaint journey, the resident reported incidents where she and her family members have been injured in the property. The Ombudsman does not dispute this however we are unable to make a determination about damages caused to the resident’s health. However, we will consider the overall distress and inconvenience that the issues in this case have caused. A determination relating to damages caused to the resident’s health is more appropriate for the courts and the resident may wish to pursue this in a legal setting.
The resident raised concerns to the Ombudsman about the conduct of contractors in the property post the completion of the landlord’s internal complaints procedures. These have not included in the investigation of this case. This is in accordance with paragraph 42(a) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, which states that the Ombudsman may not consider complaints that are made prior to having exhausted a member’s complaints procedure.

Policies and Procedures

The landlord’s planned repairs process shows it conducts stock condition surveys to inform its planned improvement programmes.
The landlord’s repair priorities and timescales says that residents should not have to wait more than 28 working days for the completion of routine repairs. In the event that a pre inspection is needed to assess what works are required, the inspection is not included within the 28 day target.

Handling of repairs to the kitchen and bathroom in the property.

Sections 11 and 9A of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 require the landlord to keep the structure and exterior of the resident’s property in repair, and to ensure that the property is fit for human habitation throughout her tenancy. Landlords are required to look at the condition of properties using a risk assessment approach called the Housing Health and Safety Rating System (HHSRS). HHSRS does not set out any minimum standards, but it is concerned with avoiding, or minimising potential hazards.
The landlord’s responses to reports at the address were broadly reasonable. It dealt with a leak into the property in around August 2019. It responded appropriately and scheduled repairs that mostly included plastering around the property. The bathroom was listed for plaster repair. During these works it inspected the kitchen and there were no works scheduled. When the landlord conducted a post works inspection on 14 January 2020 it noted that most repairs were complete. It recorded the toilet pan was rocking in the WC and scheduled a repair. There are no logs to show that the toilet pan was repaired. The resident has shown recordings and photographs that show the toilet remains insecure on the floor.
The landlord responded to the concerns raised about the condition of the kitchen in February 2022. The records show that it inspected the property on 1 March and 18 March 2022. These were both conducted within a reasonable period. The inspections show the landlord made a detailed assessment of the condition of the property. It determined that the kitchen, bathroom and WC were not sufficiently damaged that they were beyond repair. It considered the kitchen units to be in “good condition” and scheduled repairs to each room as outlined in the above timeline. It was reasonable to schedule repairs in this case.
However, the resident disputed the landlord’s findings in her request to escalate her complaint. The resident reported that many of these works were unsuccessful. She said the landlord did not replace the extractor fan, renew the skirting or repair the flooring. The repair to replace the bath panel was unsuccessful, as it came loose shortly after works were complete. The repair to the kitchen unit doors were incomplete. She described doors being attached with glue.
In its stage 2 response, the landlord agreed to arrange a “senior surveyor” to conduct a further inspection by 18 May 2022. This would have been a reasonable approach, yet there are no records available to the Ombudsman that show it conducted this inspection. The resident said that no further visit took place. The landlord should ensure that it keeps to the commitments it makes in its complaint handling. It should have confirmed that the senior surveyor inspected the property. Its failure to do so in this case led to a breakdown in trust, as evidenced by the resident’s later reports to the Ombudsman.
The landlord’s records show that it recorded the resident as a vulnerable person. Despite this, it failed to proactively manage this case. There were several outstanding repairs, but no records showing that it made contact with the resident once it had completed its complaint procedures. It should have made greater effort to ensure that the outstanding works were complete.
The resident reports that the toilet remains unattached to the floor, causing a risk of slips, trips, and falls. She also told the Ombudsman that the kitchen unit doors collapsed and fell onto the resident/her family. A risk of collision and trip hazards are potential hazards under HHSRS. There are no records showing the resident reporting these incidents to the landlord. However, the issues have persisted after the landlord attempted repairs. HHSRS says landlord’s should avoid/minimise hazards. It should have conducted a post inspection of these repairs to ensure that they had reduced the risks to the resident, given her and her families’ vulnerabilities.
Overall, there was a maladministration in the landlord’s handling of repairs to the kitchen and bathroom in the property. It was reasonable for the landlord to apologise for the delays to complete repairs and conduct inspections earlier in its stage 2 response. Its offer of £200 compensation was offered upon reflection of the delays and oversights in its handling of repairs. However, the risks present in the property were not fully acknowledged and the landlord failed to follow through with the promises it made. There was an over emphasis on the resident’s requests to have planned investment work, rather than a determination if the property was in a reasonable condition. The landlord should conduct a survey of the property and determine which works are essential to reduce these risks. It should pay the resident an additional £300 for the distress and inconvenience caused.

Communication regarding planned improvement works in the property.

Landlords conduct stock condition surveys in line with the ‘Decent Homes’ guidelines. During a survey the landlord should assess the extent to which components require immediate work. If components are determined to be in ‘poor condition’ landlord’s are advised to complete repairs (rather than replacement) when a component requires work, unless:
1. The component is sufficiently damaged that it is impossible to repair.
2. The component is unsuitable, either because it has deteriorated or was never suitable.
The Decent Homes guidance defines ‘poor condition’ as:
1. Kitchens that require major repair or replacement of 3 or more items (cold water drinking supply, hot water, sink, cooking provision, cupboards, worktop).
2. Bathrooms that require major repairs or replace 2 or more items (bath, wash hand basin, WC).
No information was seen to show the landlord was obliged to complete cyclical works within the resident’s preferred timeframe. The Decent Homes guidance for implementation sets out component lifetimes. The guidance states that kitchens have a 30 year lifespan and bathrooms can have a 40 year lifespan before being considered ‘old’. The landlord’s planned maintenance schedule shows that it reviews kitchens and bathrooms at a 30 year cycle, which is compliant with the recommendations made in the Decent Homes guidance.
In its stage 2 response, the landlord told the resident that it planned to review the kitchens in the resident’s area in 2022. It would do the same for bathrooms and WCs in 2023. The landlord’s internal records show it reviewed the kitchen and bathroom on 4 September 2019. That survey shows it planned to review the kitchen for renewal in 2027 and the bathroom in 2031. It also shows that it last replaced the kitchen and bathroom in 2000/01. The work to renew the kitchen, bathroom and WC have not been completed. The Ombudsman has seen no evidence that the landlord reviewed the kitchen and bathroom again after it issued its final response. It should have sought to manage expectations and followed through with the review in 2022 and 2023.
The resident felt that the landlord completed major works in her neighbour’s property because it had misinterpreted reports made by her. It then refused to conduct the major works in her property. We investigated the resident’s complaint on an individual basis, because she brought a sole complaint to the Ombudsman. As a result, we are unable to comment on works to a neighbouring property. The landlord recognised in its complaint responses that there had been errors in its record keeping, that meant repairs were raised against her neighbours property. Its apology for the error was reasonable in the circumstances.
The Ombudsman finds service failure in the landlord’s communication regarding planned improvement works in the property. The landlord should have been clear with the resident regarding its plans to review the kitchens, bathrooms and WC in her property. It did not follow up with the reviews set out in its final response to the resident.

Handling of repairs to a garden wall.

The resident reported that the garden wall had started to fall in her complaint on 11 May 2022. Following its inspection on the 1 March 2022, the landlord agreed to rebuild the brick wall in the rear garden. The landlord’s records are unclear how it assessed the risk to the resident during its inspection. The records show that the landlord scheduled contractors to repair the wall. An appointment was given for them to attend on 9 September 2022. This was scheduled around 6 months after the repair was inspected. This repair would have been considered a routine repair and should have been conducted within 28 working days. There was no explanation given to the resident of the delay. As such there was an inappropriate delay of around 4 months.
The contractor did not attend the appointment raised on 9 September 2022. The resident reports that there have been no follow up inspections. The landlord’s records do not show any further appointments scheduled to repair the wall. The resident said the wall has since fallen and this impacted her family. She was concerned about their safety when using the garden because of the condition of the wall. The landlord should have made sure that the work was completed by its contractor.
The Ombudsman finds maladministration in the landlord’s handling of repairs to a garden wall. The landlord inspected the wall within a reasonable period and then determined that works were required to repair or replace it. However, it failed to follow up these works and did not actively manage the contract to complete the works. The resident has described no longer being able to enjoy her garden. The landlord should pay the resident £300 in compensation for its failures to complete these repairs.

Complaint handling.

It is important for a landlord to maintain its complaint handling commitments set out in its policy and procedures. The timeline shows that there were combined delays of around 14 working days in its complaint handling. The landlord’s stage 1 response was issued 9 working days above those timeframes. There was a further delay of around 5 working days to issue its stage 2 response.
The delays would have caused additional inconvenience to the resident. The landlord failed to consider its own complaint handling. It did not agree an extension with the resident for the delays. It did not acknowledge these delays in its response to the resident. It should have addressed these issues and made efforts to put things right for the resident.
The Ombudsman finds service failure in the landlord’s complaint handling. The landlord’s complaint responses should put the resident at heart of the process. It should ensure that it seeks to manage the expectations of a resident with clear, timely communication. The landlord should pay the resident £100 in compensation for its complaint handling failures.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was:
1. Maladministration in the landlord’s handling of repairs to the kitchen and bathroom.
2. Service failure in the landlord’s communication regarding planned improvement works in the property.
3. Maladministration in the landlord’s handling of repairs to a garden wall.
4. Service failure in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Orders

Within 4 weeks of this report, the landlord is ordered to:
1. Write an apology to the resident reflective of the issues identified in this report.
2. Arrange for a suitably qualified surveyor to conduct a survey to identify any risks at the property, accounting for the vulnerabilities of the household.
3. Pay the resident £700 in compensation (including the £200 already offered). This includes:
  1. £300 for the delays in its handling repairs to the kitchen and bathroom.
  2. £300 for its failure to repair a garden wall.
  3. £100 for the delays in its complaint handling.
Within 8 weeks of this report, the landlord is ordered to:
1. Complete any outstanding repairs to the garden wall.
2. Provide the resident and the Ombudsman with an update on its position regarding planned maintenance at the property.
Provide evidence of the above to the Ombudsman.

Recommendations

The landlord should provide contact details for its insurer to the resident to consider the personal injury she reports within the property.