Call for Evidence on housing maintenance now open! Respond by 25 October 2024. Submit evidence online.

London Borough of Hackney (202215518)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202215518

London Borough of Hackney

9 May 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 handling of:
    1. Repairs to the resident’s bath mixer tap.
    2. The associated complaint.

Background

  1. The resident is a tenant of the landlord. His bath is served by a mixer tap incorporating a shower hose attachment. The landlord had no vulnerabilities recorded for the resident at the time of the complaint.
  2. On 5 May 2022, the resident reported to the landlord that he was not getting hot water in the bathroom. The landlord inspected this on 24 May 2022. The resident raised a stage one complaint with the landlord on 7 July 2022 after calling it to chase follow on repairs and finding that the job had been closed. He was unhappy that the next available appointment would not be until 8 August 2022.
  3. The landlord issued a stage one complaint response to the resident on 27 July 2022 which apologised to him for not raising follow-on works sooner. It offered him £50 compensation for this and confirmed it had brought his repair appointment forward to 3 August 2022. The resident contacted the landlord later that day to escalate his complaint because he was unhappy with the compensation it offered and the amount of effort he had expended on chasing repairs.
  4. After receiving no response from the landlord, the resident chased it for a response on 1 September 2022 and subsequently sought the intervention of the Ombudsman on 17 October 2022 after failing to receive a response from the landlord. The landlord issued its final response to him on 21 October 2022 which offered him £295 compensation. The landlord acknowledged that there had been avoidable delays in dealing with both the repair and the complaint. It noted that an appointment had been made for 25 October 2022 and hoped that this would resolve the issue for the resident.
  5. The landlord attended the resident’s property on 25 October 2022, however the repair was not completed. It suspected that the fault lay with a faulty bath mixer tap as the boiler was working correctly. The resident informed the Ombudsman on 30 November 2022 that he was dissatisfied with the length of time the repair had remained outstanding. He wanted increased compensation and the repair completed to a high standard to resolve the complaint.
  6. The landlord attended the property on 25 January 2023 and again on 8 February 2023 when it was found that the mixer tap could not be repaired. The landlord issued a revised final response to the resident on 27 February 2023 in which it increased its offer of compensation to £495, explained it had done everything it could to restore the use of the shower function from the mixer tap, and offered to replace this with separate hot and cold taps to allow the resident reliable use of the bath.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s handling of repairs to the resident’s bath tap

  1. The landlord’s terms and conditions of tenancy confirm that it is responsible for repairing the systems in the property for supplying water, gas, electricity, and for sanitation. Therefore, it was the landlord’s responsibility to carry out the repair when the resident reported that he was not getting hot water in the bathroom.
  2. The landlord’s repairs guide provides for three priorities of repairs: emergency, urgent and normal. As the resident’s repair did not involve immediate hazard to people or the property, and there was not a complete loss of hot water to the entire property, it was reasonable for the landlord to treat the repair as normal priority with a response time of 21 days.
  3. Therefore, when the resident reported the repair on 5 May 2022, it would have been reasonable for the landlord to complete this by 2 June 2022. It was not until 27 February 2023 that it confirmed to the resident that it could not repair the malfunctioning mixer tap and proposed to replace it with separate taps. This was approximately nine months later.
  4. Where a repair may be particularly complex to resolve, the Ombudsman would expect a landlord to prioritise this to prevent excess delay and to consider any temporary measures which could be taken in the meantime to reduce the impact on the resident. In this case, the landlord acknowledged, in its complaint responses, that it had caused “avoidable delays” in the course of the repair works. It acknowledged that when it first inspected the mixer tap on 24 May 2022 and determined that a plumber was required to complete the repair, it did not raise the follow-on works, necessitating the resident to chase the work on 7 July 2022 before the work was raised. It then provided an appointment for 8 August 2022, which it later brought forward to 3 August 2022. Despite bringing the appointment forward, this was still outside of the timeframe of 21 days specified for a normal repair in the landlord’s repairs guide.
  5. The Ombudsman has seen no evidence to confirm the outcome of the appointment scheduled for 3 August 2022; however, it was evident that the repair remained unresolved as the resident reported to the Ombudsman on 17 October 2022 that the landlord had attended twice without completing the repair. He relayed that he had been advised that a joint visit by a plumber and gas engineer was required but this had not occurred. This visit was scheduled for 25 October 2022; however, the landlord failed to manage this effectively as the plumber and gas engineer did not arrive at the same time, leaving the repair unresolved again. The gas engineer’s notes recorded that a plumber was required; however, there was no evidence this appointment was raised and further involvement was required from the resident on 23 November 2022 before an appointment was raised. There was a failure here by the landlord to progress the repair effectively.
  6. It was unreasonable that the landlord attended twice more before it concluded that nothing else could be done. The above events illustrate that an excessive number of visits took place over a protracted period of time before the reason for the malfunctioning mixer tap was identified. At this point the landlord concluded that there was nothing further it could do about the mixer tap and proposed installation of separate hot and cold taps. The landlord, therefore, delayed unreasonably in its handling of the repair, and did not manage the repair works effectively, necessitating excess effort on the part of the resident to progress matters.
  7. The Ombudsman’s remedies guidance, available to view online, provides for awards of compensation between £100 and £600 where there was a failure by the landlord which adversely impacted the resident over a protracted period. Therefore, the compensation offered by the landlord to the resident on 27 February 2023 of £495 – which was inclusive of £75 it had previously offered for complaint handling failures – was a reasonable offer which was in accordance with this Service’s guidance. The amount of £420 reasonably and proportionately recognised the distress and inconvenience experienced by, and the time and trouble expended by the resident over the nine-month course of the repair. The landlord should pay this compensation to the resident, if it has not done so already.
  8. While the landlord’s offer of compensation was reasonable to recognise its failures in the handling of the repair, when it informed the resident that it had done everything it could practically do to restore the function of his bath mixer tap, it did not explain what it had done specifically. Nor did it provide a clear explanation of why his previously functioning mixer tap could no longer be used, or what other options the resident might consider to restore the use of it.
  9. There is not generally an obligation for a landlord to provide both a bath and shower within a property – it would only be expected to ensure that it provided bathing facilities in the property. The exception would be if an occupational therapist recommended a specific bathing installation based on the resident’s vulnerabilities/health conditions; however, in this instance there was no evidence this was recommended.
  10. It was therefore reasonable for the landlord to propose to replace the resident’s mixer tap with separate taps to allow him reliable use of the bath. However, given that the resident did previously have access to both a shower and bath, it was unreasonable that the landlord did not clearly explain why he had lost the use of the showering facility and why it could not restore this. The landlord did explain, on 27 February 2023, that it was unable to resolve the repair due to competing water pressures, but it was not made clear how this had changed since the resident’s report of the repair on 5 May 2022, or what had caused any change in water pressure.
  11. The landlord will therefore be ordered to write to the resident to confirm the steps it took to attempt to resolve the repair, explain what changes had occurred to the water pressure and any options available to him to restore the use of his mixer tap.

The landlord’s handling of the associated complaint

  1. The landlord’s complaints procedure provides for a two-stage internal complaints procedure. At stage one of this procedure, it should respond to complaints within ten working days; at the final stage it should respond within 20 working days. If a resident is dissatisfied with the landlord’s stage one response, their complaint may be escalated to the final stage of the landlord’s process.
  2. The Ombudsman’s Complaint Handing Code (the Code), which all member landlords are required to adhere to, sets out that if a resident is dissatisfied with a landlord’s stage one complaint response, the landlord should escalate the complaint to the next stage of its internal process unless it has a valid reason not to. If this is the case, it should make this reason clear to the resident.
  3. The resident informed the landlord on 27 July 2022, on receipt of its stage one response, that he was unhappy with its response. It did not escalate the complaint at that point, nor did it escalate the complaint when the resident contacted it again on 9 September 2022 to request that it respond to his escalation request. The landlord did not consider the complaint at the next stage of its procedure until the intervention of the Ombudsman on 17 October 2022. This was a failure by the landlord to follow its complaints procedure and the Code.
  4. The landlord acknowledged this failing in its final response on 21 October 2022 and offered the resident £75 compensation for its failure to escalate his complaint. The Ombudsman’s remedies guidance, provides for awards of £50 to £100 compensation where there was a failure by the landlord leading to distress and inconvenience, and a delay in resolving matters. Given that the landlord issued its final response to the resident promptly within five working days, after the Ombudsman’s intervention, and that it fully recognised and apologised for its failure, the compensation it offered the resident for its handling of the complaint was reasonable and was broadly in accordance with this Service’s remedies guidance. Therefore the landlord does not need to do anything further regarding this aspect of the complaint.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure by the landlord in its handling of repairs to the resident’s bath tap.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 53(b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord made an offer of redress to the resident which, in the opinion of the Ombudsman, resolves the complaint satisfactorily concerning its handling of the associated complaint.

Orders

  1. Within four weeks, the landlord should:
    1. Pay the resident the £420 compensation it offered him on 27 February 2023 for the handling of its repair to the bath tap. The Ombudsman understands the resident accepted this offer on 24 March 2023, and the landlord should pay this to him if it has not done so already.
    2. Write to the resident to clarify why the mixer is outside of its ability to repair and what other steps may exist to remedy the situation.

Recommendations

  1. The landlord should:
    1. Pay the resident the £75 compensation it offered him in its final response for its handling of the complaint, unless this has already been paid.