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

London Borough of Enfield (202212869)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202212869

Enfield Council

17 July 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:
    1. The resident’s request for a suitability review of the property.
    2. The state of repair of the property at the start of the tenancy.
    3. The landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about the condition of communal areas at the property.
    4. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

Jurisdiction

The resident’s request for a suitability review of the property

  1. What we can and cannot consider is called the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. This is governed by the Housing Ombudsman Scheme. When a complaint is brought to the Ombudsman, we must consider all the circumstances of the case as there are sometimes reasons why a complaint will not be investigated.
  2. After carefully considering all the evidence, in accordance with paragraph 42 (k) of the Scheme, the resident’s request for a suitability review of the property allocated to her by the council is outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. This is because complaints about housing allocations come under the jurisdiction of the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman (LGSCO) and not the Housing Ombudsman Service. The resident should therefore seek redress for this aspect of the complaint from the LGSCO as soon as possible, if she has not already done so.

 

 

Background

  1. The resident has an introductory tenancy of a flat granted by the landlord, a local housing authority. The resident has a visual impairment and refers to her chronic illness in the complaint. The landlord has a duty under the Equality Act 2010 to make reasonable adjustments for tenants and prospective tenants with a disability.
  2. On 21 July 2022 the resident signed a tenancy agreement to start on 1 August but felt unable to move into the property because she considered the poor state of repair of the interior and communal areas made it unliveable.  
  3. The resident states that she notified the landlord in writing of repair issues on 31 July. Following a site visit on 5 August the landlord acknowledged its responsibility for the identified internal repairs and reported that it had attended to maintenance issues in the gardens and communal areas which the resident had also complained about. The landlord also said that its contractor had tried to arrange access to do the repairs.
  4. The resident made a formal complaint to the landlord on 19 August in which she said that the landlord was aware of her disability and her need to move into a property which was in basic working order. She asked for a suitability review of the property, for the tenancy to be revoked, for rent paid to be refunded and for her housing application to be reinstated. The landlord’s stage one response explained that the resident was not eligible for a suitability review but again acknowledged the repair issues and asked the resident to arrange access for its contractor to do the work.
  5. The resident requested a review of the response saying that she felt she had been blamed for causing the disrepair, there had been a failure to acknowledge extensive, pre-existing disrepair and that the landlord had ignored her disability and chronic illnesses.
  6. The landlord’s final response confirmed its stage one finding that the resident was not eligible for a suitability review. It did however find that the answers given to the complaints about maintenance of communal areas were insufficient and provided more information about the action taken. The response also noted that there were internal repair issues still outstanding, and that the resident was required to give access for these to be rectified.
  7. The resident complained to the Housing Ombudsman and the complaint was accepted for investigation on 8 December 2022. The resident’s request for a suitability assessment of the property is not part of this investigation for the reasons set out in paragraph 3 above.

Assessment and findings

State of repair of the property at the start of the tenancy

  1. The resident’s complaint is that the property was in an unsatisfactory state of repair before the start of the tenancy.  The landlord’s guide for all new tenants explains that its ‘lettings standard’ sets out “the standard of repair and appearance you can expect when you move in. This means that your home will be clean and in a good state of repair.” The guide also advises new tenants that the landlord “will keep in good repair and proper working order the installations in the property for the supply of water, gas, electricity, sanitation, heating and hot water” although its responsibility for repairing these installations only begins when it is told that a repair is needed.
  2. The landlord’s contractor carried out renewal and reinstatement works at the property during the void period which should have ensured that it was in a good state of repair before the start of the resident’s tenancy. However, between signing the tenancy agreement on 21 July 2022 and the start of the tenancy on 1 August the resident became aware of repair issues at the property. The resident states that she gave the landlord written notice of the repairs on 31 July and made a formal complaint on 19 August listing the repair issues: (i) no hot water to the property due to a defective water cylinder (ii) water pressure to hot water taps low and water pump broken (iii) front door to the property broken at the hinges and not closing properly and (iv) toilet base not sealed to the floor.
  3. In her request to escalate the complaint for review the resident reported further repair issues not contained in her first complaint; a defective fuseboard which the resident said made the property unsafe for occupation and uneven flooring in a living area.  The landlord’s final response does not acknowledge or address these further complaints.
  4. Although the landlord’s ‘lettings standard’ is not defined in any policy document seen by this investigation, the landlord acknowledged that the property was not in a good state of repair by agreeing to fix the repair issues which the resident had identified. It also upheld this element of her complaint and, in its initial response to the complaint, explained the cause of the low water pressure and apologised for any inconvenience caused.  The landlord therefore appears to have accepted it was responsible for a service failure in not making sure the property was in a good state of repair at the start of the tenancy.
  5. The landlord’s tenancy agreement requires tenants to allow access for its contractors to carry out repairs.  Having acknowledged its responsibility for fixing the reported repairs, the landlord acted appropriately in making repeated attempts to arrange access for its contractors to put things right, even before the resident submitted her formal complaint on 19 August 2022. The resident was however unwilling to assist the landlord by allowing access. The resident told the landlord that, because of the extent of the pre-existing repairs, the property wasn’t safe for her to occupy and because she worked full time, she was not available to facilitate access for contractors.
  6.  The resolution to her complaint, requested by the resident, was for the tenancy to be revoked because she considered the property to be unsuitable, for rent paid to be refunded and for her housing application to be reinstated. It is therefore understandable that the resident had no interest in resolving the repair issues. However, it is a condition of the tenancy agreement, signed by the resident, that she must allow access for the landlord’s contractors to carry out repairs. By failing to do this the resident prevented the landlord from investigating and resolving the problems she had complained about. The Ombudsman also notes that the resident is obliged to pay rent during the period of the tenancy.
  7. In all the circumstances of the case, an overall determination of maladministration has been identified in relation to this aspect of the complaint. The landlord has acknowledged that the condition of the property at the tenancy start date was not at a suitable standard. Its attempts to remedy this by taking appropriate steps to resolve these repair issues was appropriate, however, a compensation award would also have been reasonable given the clear inconvenience and distress experienced by this vulnerable resident.

Condition of the communal areas of the property at the start of the tenancy

  1. Part of the complaint to the landlord about the condition of the property at the start of the tenancy related to poor maintenance of communal areas specifically; (i) fly tipping in the communal garden area causing odour and fly infestation in the property (ii) obstructions and poor maintenance in internal communal areas (iii) poorly lit entry ways and (iv) broken fence and gate at the rear of the property.
  2. The landlord’s maintenance, repairs and planned works policy encourages tenants who have special needs or are vulnerable to tell the landlord about any special circumstances so that it can make special arrangements when visiting and prioritise the repairs correctly. The resident made clear in her complaint that she had a disability and explained the impact these elements of the complaint had on her independence and sense of security because of that disability.  The landlord’s final response to the resident’s complaint reported how it had responded to issues of fly tipping and obstructions and poor maintenance of communal areas and this response appears appropriate and timely and provided satisfactory evidence that the complaint was acted on promptly. The response to the complaint does not however acknowledge or address the resident’s disability and this investigation has seen no evidence that the landlord consulted with the resident about her needs in particular relating to her complaint about lighting and maintenance of the communal areas.
  3. The tenancy agreement states that the landlord will repair or replace boundary fences and gates where the fence separates the tenant’s garden from a public right of way. While it has not been confirmed that the resident’s fence does adjoin a public right of way, the landlord’s response to the complaint about her fence and gate appears to accept responsibility for carrying out these repairs.
  4. The landlord’s repair response to the complaint about a broken fence and gate did not meet its service standards.  The stage one complaint response did not inform the resident what it planned to do about the broken fence and gate and on 17 October 2022, in her request to escalate the complaint, the resident points out that the fence and gate are still broken. In its final response to the complaint on 9 November the landlord told the resident that the broken fence and gate had been reported to the repairs team to be rectified. It did not say when the repair had been reported and did not tell the resident when the repairs were likely to take place.
  5. By the time of the final stage response the resident had been waiting at least 90 days since first reporting the broken fence and gate. According to the landlord’s maintenance, repairs and planned works policy the timescale for carrying out a routine repair ie a repair issue “not likely to cause any serious discomfort, inconvenience or nuisance” to the tenant should be within 30 days of making a request. Planned works, ie works which a stock condition survey has identified as required, should be carried out within 90 days. The landlord did not therefore meet its general service standards and in addition there is no evidence that the landlord considered whether the repairs needed to be completed more rapidly in response to the resident’s declared vulnerability.
  6. The state of maintenance of communal areas at the property at the start of the tenancy required attention both from the caretaking team and the repairs service but this was provided promptly and then monitored appropriately. There was no service failure in the landlord’s response to the reported fly tipping and fly issues and to the steps taken to ensure there were no major obstructions in the hallway.
  7. There was service failure however in the landlord’s response to the broken gate and fence and her complaints about poor maintenance of internal communal areas and poor lighting of the entryway. The landlord failed to meet its own timescales for carrying out repairs to the resident’s fence and gate and did not  provide any information about when she could expect the work to be done. The landlord did not respond to or acknowledge in any way the information provided to them about the resident’s disability and there is no record that they considered her complaint about lighting of entryways and maintenance of common areas. To remedy this aspect of the complaint, a further order of compensation has been ordered, to reflect the additional distress and inconvenience experienced by the resident in relation to these concerns.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint

  1. The landlord has adopted the Housing Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code and has a two stage complaints process. The landlord’s tenancy agreement sets out an older version of a complaints procedure with a first response followed by a two stage process. It appears that it was the older procedure which was followed at the initial stage of the resident’s complaints.  
  2. The first response to the complaints seen by this investigation is an email from the landlord’s voids and lettings manager dated 12 August 2022. This response describes the concerns raised by the resident about the condition of the property as “queries”. In reality the landlord was responding to an expression of dissatisfaction from the resident about service standards which it would have been more appropriate to treat as a complaint at that stage. Failure to do so resulted in a delay in progressing the complaint and repetition of the initial stage response which contributed to the resident’s lack of confidence in the process. 
  3. On 19 August 2022 the resident submitted a formal complaint about the condition of the property.  The landlord’s stage one response was issued after 16 working days and it was signed by the same manager who prepared the first response and was very similar, in parts identical, in content.  The resident has expressed her disappointment that the complaint was not looked at independently at this stage.  The landlord’s approach to investigating the complaint at stage one did not meet the Complaint Handling Code requirements of fairness and independence.
  4. The stage one response also failed to address points raised by the resident: that she had a visual impairment and felt the property was unsafe, the difficulties she had experienced communicating with the various departments of the council to resolve the issues and the action to be taken with regard to the broken fence and gate.
  5. The central element of the complaint was that the repairs identified should have been dealt with prior to the offer of a tenancy of the property. The resident has also complained that she felt ‘blamed’ for damage to the property before she moved in and says in her request for a stage two review of the complaint that there was a failure by the landlord “ to fairly acknowledge the extensive pre-existing damage” to the property. The wording of the landlord’s stage one response is not helpful. Despite listing the identified repair issues for which it accepted responsibility, the response claimed that “all works undertaken are carried out to our letting standard, checked, and signed off by our surveyor.” It goes on “However, on occasion repairs issues can arise after handover.” It is unclear whether the landlord’s position is that disrepair issues sometimes come to light after tenancy sign up or whether the landlord is indicating a view that damage occurred after tenancy sign up. If it is the latter, then no evidence has been provided to substantiate the suggestion. In view of the ambiguous response, it is not surprising that the resident felt aggrieved about the landlord’s failure to acknowledge the pre-existing disrepair issues.
  6. Although the initial complaint response apologises for any inconvenience caused by the repair issues, no apologies were offered for the failure to ensure the property was in a good state of repair at the start of the tenancy and no compensation was offered.  The complaint response focusses instead on the fact that the resident had not yet allowed access to carry out repairs. It does not acknowledge or respond to the information provided by the resident about her disability. 
  7. The resident experienced further difficulties in escalating her complaint to the final review stage.  On 13 September she received an automated email from the landlord stating that the case was now being closed. The resident responded on the same day to say that she wanted the complaint escalated for review. The complaints team acknowledged receipt of the request 9 working days later, on 26 September, asking for more detail about which element of the response she wished to have reviewed. It was only after the resident requested a formal review for a second time on 17 October that the review process was set in motion.
  8. The resident’s request for a review of the stage one response was explicit in pointing out that she considers her disability and chronic illness have been ignored by the landlord and no attention paid to the implications for her as a disabled person of what she considers to be an unsafe and insecure property.  The resident describes the difficulties experienced in escalating the complaint for review and her dissatisfaction that the stage one response repeated the manager’s initial response to her concerns. The resident also raised additional issues about the condition of the property including unsafe electrics and uneven floor surfaces.
  9. The final stage response again makes no mention of the resident’s disability and does not acknowledge or seek to address her concerns about safety and security in the light of her disability. It does not address the additional repair issues raised.  The review does recognise that some of the issues raised about maintenance of communal areas were not answered in their entirety in the stage one response. It goes on to detail what action has been taken about fly tipping and internal communal areas and informs the resident that the broken fence and gate have now been reported. The response does not however apologise for the delay in dealing with the repair or advise when the resident can expect the work to be done.
  10. In its complaint handling the landlord has failed to clearly acknowledge and apologise when its own service standards have not been met and responses also  failed to address all the issues raised. Most seriously, the landlord has not at any time in the handling of the resident’s complaint acknowledged the resident’s disability or indicated a willingness to make reasonable adjustment for this.  The Ombudsman notes that, in response to a request for information sent to the landlord in preparation for this investigation, the landlord advised the Ombudsman that it had no vulnerabilities recorded for the resident. This omission suggests poor record keeping and poor management of data.  
  11. The landlord’s complaint handling process was an opportunity to acknowledge the special needs of the resident arising from her disability and to restore the resident’s confidence in the landlord’s willingness and ability to meet those needs.  Maladministration in its handling of the complaint by the landlord resulted in the resident’s disability continuing to be ignored and confused fair and objective complaint handling with its operational need to communicate with the resident about her failure to allow access to its contractors.
  12. A further order of compensation has been made in relation to the failures identified with the landlord’s complaints handling on this case. In addition, it is recommended that the landlord review the failures on this case and identify suitable training for staff involved in complaint handling.

Determination (decision)

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme (the Scheme), there was maladministration with respect to the condition of the interior of the property at the start of the tenancy which the landlord attempted to redress.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme there was service failure with respect to the condition of the communal areas and the landlord’s response with partial redress.
  3. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme there was maladministration with respect to the landlord’s complaints handling.
  4. In accordance with paragraph 42 (k) of the Scheme, the complaint about a suitability review of the property is outside the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.

Orders

  1. The landlord to apologise in writing to the resident for the overall failures identified on the case.
  2. The landlord to pay £600 compensation to the resident for the identified failures, broken down as follows:
    1. £250 for the failures identified in relation to the property condition at the tenancy start date.
    2. £100 for the failures identified with the condition of communal areas.
    3. £250 for the failures identified with its complaints handling.
  3. The landlord to evidence compliance with the orders to this Service within four weeks of this determination.

Recommendations

  1. The landlord to review the training needs of staff in relation to its duties under the Equality Act 2010, particularly the needs of staff involved in complaints handling. 
  2. Further information about how to make a complaint to the LGSO can be found on its website  https://www.lgo.org.uk/how-to-complain  Complaints must be made to the LGSCO within 12 months of the resident becoming aware of the issues which are the subject of the complaint.