London Borough of Hillingdon (202004603)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202004603

London Borough of Hillingdon

26 July 2021 (Amended following review on 01 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 complaint is about the landlord’s:
1. Handling of the replacement of the front door.
2. Handling of the installation of an extractor fan.
3. Response to the resident’s reports of damp and mould.
4. Response to the resident’s reports of defects to the windows.
5. Complaint handling.

Background and summary of events

Background

The resident has a secure, flexible tenancy with the landlord that started in 2019. The resident has a personality disorder as well as well as suffering from schizophrenia, depression, anxiety and stress.
The tenancy agreement says that the resident must give the landlord access for inspections and to carry out repairs or improvement works.
The landlord’s housing repairs guide says that the resident is responsible for wiping down condensation and mould; the landlord is responsible for adjusting, making safe, repairing and renewing front and back doors and frames. It is also responsible for door locks and latches as well as extractor fans.
At the time of the matters first complained about, the landlord had a three-stage formal complaints procedure. It would try to resolve matters informally first but, if that was not possible, it would deal with the matter formally. The landlord aimed to respond at stages one and two within ten working days. It would only escalate to stage three (a response from the Chief Executive) if it felt the response could not be overturned through the complaints process. The complaints procedure makes no reference to disrepair or cases where legal action is being taken as being outside the complaints procedure.
On 23 March 2020 the UK government announced a national lockdown due to covid-19. This was eased from June 2020 when schools and non-essential retail outlets re-opened. The government introduced new restrictions from 22 September 2020 and a second full national lockdown was announced on 31 October 2020 that came into effect from 5 November 2020. While restrictions were lifted slightly over Christmas, there was a new national lockdown from 6 January 2021. During lockdown the landlord operated an essential repair service only inside properties.

Summary of Events

On 12 March 2020 the landlord raised a repair for the front door of the property noting that it should make the front door safe after the police forced entry (as they believed the tenant was at risk). It noted that the door might need boarding up and a possible lock change. On the same day the landlord noted that the door had been made safe and a works order sent to the door contractor (the contractor) to renew the door.
On 6 May 2020 the resident made an online complaint to the landlord about the front door which he said was not secure as it was keyless from the inside. He said he felt discriminated against due to his learning disability
On 7 May 2020 the landlord responded to the complaint explaining that the door contractor was not open due to the pandemic. It said, once they were open again, it would take about six weeks to manufacture a new front door. It apologised for the delay in dealing with this matter. It assured the resident it was not discriminating against him and the timescales for repair would be the same as for any other resident.
On 8 May 2020 the resident made a further online complaint to the landlord about the delay in repairing the front door and his concern that it was not secure.
On 12 May 2020 the landlord responded at stage one of its formal complaints procedure to the resident’s complaints about his front door. The main points were:
1. It had made the door secure within two hours on 12 March 2020 with a new lock fitted. The landlord said it had placed a works order with the contractor to replace it. While the contractor had not been working during lockdown, it had reopened from 10 May 2020 and they would contact the resident.
2. The landlord said it would also inspect the current door to ensure it was secure and take any action to make it secure as necessary.
On the same day the landlord installed a sliding bolt on the inside of the front door to improve the security of the property.
On 15 May 2020 the landlord undertook a general inspection of the property. It noted several repairs and that it needed to check when the windows would be renewed. The landlord provided no evidence that it did so.
The repair log notes that the contractor attended the property on 20 May and 6 June 2020 to measure up for a new front door but the resident was not there. The resident told this Service that he did not receive notice of those visits in advance.
On 10 July 2020 solicitors representing the resident wrote to the landlord asking it to give the damp and mould issues the resident had raised its “full attention” to provide an “urgent resolution to this issue”.
The landlord responded to the resident’s legal representatives on 29 July 2020, noting that its investigation of the damp and mould and the completion of repairs may be delayed due to the need to arrange for a mental health support worker to be present at any future visits.
An appointment was arranged for 7 August 2020 to attend the property to carry out an inspection, however, this was cancelled on 6 August 2020 due to the unavailability of the support worker that had been scheduled to attend. The landlord states that it attempted to telephone the resident to advise of the cancellation but its calls were terminated. The resident telephoned the landlord on 10 August 2020 to express his disappointment that the appointment did not go ahead.
On 13 August 2020 the landlord wrote to the resident in response to online complaint forms it had received from him at the end of July and start of August 2021 which included complaints about the front door. It did not deal with this matter as it said the resident had raised a disrepair claim and it would therefore be inappropriate for it to progress this by way of a complaint.
Between 14 August 2020 and 10 September 2020 the landlord contacted the probation service, the police and social services in an attempt to arrange an accompanied visit to the property but none of its contacts were available to attend.
On 2 October 2020 the landlord raised a repair to board up the front door as the police had broken it down again to gain access.
From 6 October 2020 to 3 December 2020 this Service exchanged numerous correspondence with the landlord about its view that the resident’s solicitors had initiated a disrepair claim and therefore responding to his complaints about the repair matters was inappropriate. The Ombudsman’s view was that the landlord had not provided evidence of such a disrepair claim and it should issue a final complaint response to the resident. The landlord provided the solicitor’s letter of 10 July 2020 as evidence. The Ombudsman’s view was that did it not constitute evidence that legal proceedings had begun or continued. In amongst that correspondence the landlord told this Service on 6 November 2020 that it had tried to arrange a survey inspection but “it had all sorts of access and contact issues and [the resident] did not cooperate”.
On 11 December 2020 the landlord wrote to the resident saying it had re-registered his complaint about the front door security and renewal following contact from this Service.
On 14 January 2021 the landlord responded at stage one of its complaints procedure about the resident’s complaints about the front door and other repair issues. It gave the background to events and repeated points in had made in its earlier complaint response of 12 May 2020 (paragraph 11). The main, new points were:
1. It had inspected the flat in May 2020 for other repair issues and arranged some plastering and electrical repairs. The officer made a further appointment with the resident in July 2021 for a report of mould but that appointment had to be cancelled as the resident’s support worker could not attend (paragraph 16). It had tried to rebook without success.
2. A new inspection would take place on 26 February 2021, as it was only doing emergency repairs and inspections during the current lockdown.
3. It had taken the position that it could not progress the resident’s complaint of disrepair as it had received a letter from his solicitor that it had taken to be a letter before action. In such situations it does not proceed with a complaint as it could prejudice the outcome of legal proceedings. However, when the Ombudsman Service informed it on 3 December 2020 that he had not begun legal proceedings, the complaint was registered on 11 December 2020. It was satisfied that it had applied the complaints procedure correctly.
The landlord explained how the resident could escalate the complaint.
Also on 14 January 2021, the contractor visited the property and subsequently told the landlord that as it was a fire-check door, they were not allowed to renew these under the terms of their contract.
On 15 January 2021 the resident asked the landlord to escalate his complaint saying the issues had caused him anxiety and distress.
On 17 January 2021 the resident raised a new complaint about the front door and not having an extractor fan in the bathroom as it did not have any windows.
On 28 January 2021 the landlord’s repair team measured up for a new front door at the property. On 5 February 2021 a new timber fire door was installed.
On 3 February 2021 the landlord told the resident that its stage two complaint response would be delayed and an extension given to 17 February 2021.
On 10 February 2021 the landlord responded at the final stage of its formal complaint procedure. It apologised for the delay in doing so. It again gave the background of events that had led to the complaint. The new, main points were:
1. The door contractor was not a registered installer for fire compliant doors. However, when they attended the property, they felt that a fire door was needed and that is why they referred it back to the landlord’s maintenance team who arranged for a wooden fire-rated door to be made in its workshop. This was fitted on 5 February 2021.
2. After the police first forced entry, an additional bolt to the door was fitted and when the police forced entry again, the locks were renewed. The landlord said it understood the door was made secure on both occasions.
3. It had asked that the kitchen units and the windows in the property be part of the inspection that was to take place on 11 February 2021 in response to the resident’s concerns that the windows were draughty and the kitchen units needed to be replaced.
4. It was not aware of an issue with an extractor fan previously; however, it had asked that an assessment be made whether it was necessary to fit an extractor fan in the bathroom during the inspection of 11 February 2021.
5. It also explained that it did not progress his complaint as it had received a letter from the resident’s solicitor which it understood to be a “letter before action”. When it received clarification that the letter was asking for the repairs to be carried out and not about legal proceedings, it progressed the complaint. It added that any complaint investigation could prejudice legal proceedings.
The landlord signposted the resident to the Housing Ombudsman.
On 11 February 2021 the landlord inspected the bathroom to see if an extractor fan could be installed. The repairs log notes that there was wiring in place for an extractor fan and one had previously been in place. It also noted in respect to the windows that they “need to be renewed when services resume”.
On 26 February 2021, following an email from the resident, the landlord responded saying it had found no damp or mould at its inspection earlier that month except for a small amount of mould on the window that had been caused by condensation; that an extractor fan would be fitted in the bathroom on 24 March 2021; and that the wooden door it had fitted met legal requirements.
On an internal email that day the landlord noted that it would be upgrading all doors in the block to UPVC doors under a future planned works fire safety programme.
On 24 March 2021 an extractor fan was fitted in the bathroom of the property.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s handling of the replacement of the front door

The landlord’s initial responses to the broken-down front door were reasonable by making it secure (paragraph 7) and, after the resident had raised fears about concerns about his safety, by installing a bolt on the inside to address those concerns (paragraph 12).
The landlord then ordered the contractor to supply and fit a door. However, the contractor was unable to supply the door as it was not within the terms of its contract to supply fire-check doors. It would be reasonable to expect the landlord to be aware of what type of door required replacing and where to obtain it. The landlord did not act reasonably here; its lack of knowledge about the type of door required meant that the resident experienced a very long delay in having a new front door installed.
In this case, the landlord’s maintenance team were able to make and install one and did so within six working days of measuring up. If the landlord had been aware from the start that it was responsible for fitting a new door, the repairs team could have measured up on 12 March 2020 and it is likely that a new door would have been installed before lockdown started later that month. As it is, a new door was not installed until mid-January 2021, some ten months later. This mishandling by the landlord amounted to service failure and the delay caused evident distress, frustration and inconvenience to the resident.
In relation to the failures identified, the Ombudsman’s role is to provide fair and proportionate remedies where maladministration or service failure has been identified. An order for redress has been made below, this sum is within the range of amounts that the Ombudsman can order when he has found evidence of considerable service failure or maladministration. This includes cases where there has been a failure to carry out repairs appropriately.

The landlord’s handling of the installation of an extractor fan

This Service has not seen the void records of the landlord nor its void standard. However, it is usual practice that an extractor fan should be in place in an internal bathroom or one which does not have any openable windows.
The evidence suggests that the resident first brought up the issue of an extractor fan in his complaint of 17 January 2021. The landlord responded appropriately to this contact by inspecting the bathroom (paragraph 30) and installing a fan on 24 March 2021 (paragraph 33). The action undertaken by the landlord was appropriate and, on the basis of the evidence seen, there has been no service failure in respect of this aspect of the complaint.
However, the evidence shows that there had been a fan in the bathroom at one stage as the wiring remained. It was not possible to ascertain if the extractor fan was in place when the resident moved into the property. I have made a recommendation, below for the landlord to take further action in relation to this issue.

Response to the resident’s reports of damp and mould

There is no evidence that the landlord was aware of a problem of mould in the property until the resident’s solicitors wrote to it on 10 July 2020 (paragraph 15). The landlord responded appropriately by arranging for an inspection on 7 August 2020 but that did not take place as the resident’s support worker was unable to attend (paragraph 16).
The landlord has evidenced that it made further attempts to arrange an accompanied visit between 14 August 2020 and 10 September 2020. However, there is no indication that the landlord continued to pursue this, considered alternative means of gaining safe access, or contacted the resident for more information about the extent of the damp and mould, between 10 September 2020 and January 2021. An inspection then took place in February 2021, which detected a small amount of mould which the repairs team attributed to condensation, not damp (paragraph 31). No evidence has been provided to this Service to demonstrate that the landlord kept the resident or his legal representatives updated about the reason for the delay in progressing the inspection. There was therefore service failure in its response to the resident’s reports of damp and mould.
The delay in arranging the visit to look into the mould issue evidently caused frustration and distress to the resident and I have made an order for compensation. This sum is within the range of amounts that the Ombudsman can order, including in cases where there has been a delay in carrying out work.

Response to the resident’s reports of defects to the windows

The landlord identified that there was a problem with the windows during the inspection of 15 May 2020. There is no evidence that it checked to see when they would be renewed as noted in the repair log. Following a complaint from the resident about this issue, the landlord inspected the property again and noted that the windows should be renewed.
Had the landlord checked on the renewal date of the windows it may have reached a decision sooner that the windows should be renewed. This delay evidently caused the resident frustration and inconvenience and led to him using a solicitor to progress this matter with the landlord. I have made an order for compensation, below. This sum is within the range of amounts that the Ombudsman can order when he has found evidence of considerable service failure or maladministration. This includes cases where there has been a delay in taking appropriate action with respect to repairs.

Complaint handling

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s initial complaint of 6 May 2020 was appropriate giving a quick, informal response (paragraph 9).
The landlord’s handling of later complaints was not appropriate. It failed to recognise that the resident had not made a disrepair claim and therefore that it should not have delayed progressing his complaints through the complaints procedure. This resulted in over a five-month delay; there were further delays at both stage one and two when the landlord re-registered these disrepair complaints on 11 December 2020. It is recommended that training is undertaken so that staff members understand when a disrepair claim is being made.
The landlord’s failure to progress the complaint and therefore resolve matters at the earliest opportunity meant that it missed an opportunity to improve the landlord/tenant relationship. The landlord was responsible for maladministration in its handling of the resident’s complaints.
This mishandling and delays evidently caused the resident frustration and distress. I have made an order for compensation, below. This sum is within the range of amounts that the Ombudsman can order when he has found evidence of considerable service failure or maladministration. This includes cases where there have been complaint handling failures.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration by the landlord in respect of its complaint handling.
In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was service failure by the landlord in respect of its:
1. Handling of the replacement of the front door.
2. Response to the resident’s reports of damp and mould.
3. Response to the resident’s reports of defects to the windows.
In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was no maladministration by the landlord in respect of its handling of the installation of an extractor fan.

Reasons

The landlord should have known that it was appropriate to fit a fire door at the property and therefore that the door contractor could not undertake that work.
There were lengthy delays by the landlord in dealing with the later complaints from the resident, in part due to its misunderstanding that a disrepair claim had been made.
There was delay by the landlord in carrying out an inspection to inspect for damp and mould. The landlord failed to contact the resident to inform him of the reason for the delay, or to continue to pursue alternative means of safe access or to obtain more information about the problem, between September 2020 and January 2021.
There is no evidence that the landlord looked into the planned renewal date for the windows; had they done so it is reasonable it would have reached a decision sooner that they should be renewed.
The landlord took appropriate action to install an extractor fan when this matter was drawn to its attention. The Ombudsman has asked the landlord to look into this matter further to establish if there was earlier service failure for which compensation should be paid.

Orders

The landlord shall within four weeks of the date of this report take the following action:
1. Apologise to the resident for the service failures identified in this report.
2. Pay the resident the sum of £500 made up of:
  1. £200 for the delay in installing a new front door at the property.
  2. £100 for the delay in arranging an inspection to look for mould.
  3. £200 for the complaint handling failures identified in this report.

Recommendations

It is recommended that the landlord takes the following action:
1. Undertake training for staff who consider complaints so that the staff members can correctly identify when a disrepair claim is being made (and not being made).
2. Amends its complaints policy to reflect that it will not deal with issues through its complaints procedure where a disrepair claim has been made and include guidance on what constitutes a disrepair claim.