London Borough of Sutton (202321548)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202321548

London Borough of Sutton

29 July 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. response to the resident’s reports about repair issues at her property, including;
  1. gas;
  2. electrical wiring;
  3. asbestos;
2. complaints handling.

Background

Throughout the period of the complaint, the resident was a temporary tenant at the property of the landlord. The landlord is a local authority. The landlord used a managing agent to carry out its responsibilities regarding the property. For the purposes of this report, communications and actions from both the landlord and managing agent are referred to as having come from ‘the landlord’, unless it is otherwise necessary to distinguish between them.
The resident moved into the property on or around 8 June 2023. It is not disputed that when she moved in, there was no active gas supply at the property. The landlord has advised that its gas contractors inspected the property during the voids period and discovered that the gas supply had been capped. The landlord, therefore, advised the resident to arrange a supplier once she had moved in, at which point the gas could be reconnected.
The resident contacted a supplier, but the property was not listed as being connected to the gas network. The gas network operator attended the next day but was unable to access the pipe. The resident informed the landlord about this issue on 13 June 2023 and advised that she had no heating or hot water.
The gas network operator advised it would install a new gas supply, but advised this could take up to 12 weeks. The landlord, therefore, installed an electric shower in the property on 20 June 2023.
The contractors responsible for installing the new gas pipe initially sought to run the pipe through the ceiling. However, on or around 1 September 2023, they raised concerns about asbestos. A test was carried out on or around 13 September 2023, and it was determined that there was no asbestos present. It is not evident that the resident was informed about this at the time.
Prior to the outcome of the asbestos tests, the contractors determined it was easier to run the pipe under the floor. This involved removing and relaying the resident’s carpet. The landlord’s records note that the gas supply went live on 1 September 2023, and a gas meter was subsequently installed on 13 September 2023.
In addition to the issues with the gas supply, the resident also raised concerns about the electrical wiring in the property. The resident raised concerns about loose electrical sockets on 13 June 2023. The landlord has advised that it attended on 16 June 2023 and resolved this issue. The resident also raised concerns about her smoke alarms erroneously beeping on 6 July 2023. The landlord has advised that it attended on 19 July 2023 and resolved the issue. While both of the resident’s reports are noted on the landlord’s repair records, the records do not specifically note the date on which the issues were resolved. Additionally, during a boiler inspection on 10 August 2023, the landlord’s operative noted the boiler had been wired incorrectly.
The resident raised a formal complaint on 1 September 2023, regarding the delays to the gas installation and the wiring faults. She also noted that there had been a number of missed appointments, which had caused her inconvenience. She advised that she had not received any updates following the visits relating to the wiring. She also advised that she wanted any outstanding issues with the wiring to be resolved. She further advised that, following the asbestos inspection, there was a hole in her ceiling which she wanted repaired. The landlord initially advised that it was treating the resident’s complaint as a service request; however, the resident clarified she wished for the issues to be addressed as a formal complaint.
The landlord provided its stage one response on 15 September 2023, which included the following:
1. The landlord acknowledged that it had taken a long time for the gas to be reinstated, for which it apologised.
2. It noted that some of the delays had been caused by the possible asbestos issue. It also noted it had provided an electric shower to mitigate the impact caused to the resident.
3. It also provided its position that the electrical issues had been resolved.
On the same date, the resident expressed her dissatisfaction with the landlord’s response. She noted it had not provided sufficient detail about the electrical issues, nor had it addressed her concerns about the asbestos inspection hole. She further expressed her dissatisfaction that she had been paying full rent during the period there was no gas supply and noted that the landlord had not provided its position on compensation.
On 20 September 2023, the landlord offered the resident £150 compensation and apologised that this offer had not been included in its stage one response. The resident subsequently declined this offer and repeated her concerns through the landlord’s online complaints portal. It is not evident that the landlord acknowledged this.
The resident subsequently contacted this service, who requested that the landlord provide a formal complaint response. The landlord acknowledged this request on 15 November 2023.
The landlord provided its stage two response on 11 December 2023, which included the following:
1. It provided a detailed breakdown of the events surrounding the gas supply.
2. It also noted the actions it had taken regarding the electrical issues. Regarding the boiler wiring, it advised that it had been determined that the wiring had been a temporary measure prior to the meter installation, which had now been resolved.
3. It noted that the resident had mentioned missed appointments but advised that it did not have a record of any missed appointments.
4. In addition to its previous offer of £150 compensation, it offered further compensation of £660, which was broken down as follows:
  1. loss of amenity of gas in the kitchen for 14 weeks at £25 per week – £350;
  2. loss of use of a shower for two weeks at £20 per week – £40;
  3. loss of hot water in the bathroom for 12 weeks at £10 per week – £120;
  4. good will gesture – £150.
In referring her complaint to this service, the resident advised that the asbestos hole had never been addressed. Additionally, the Ombudsman has been provided with the landlord’s internal communications from the period of the complaint. In May 2024, these communications show that the landlord uncovered that its contractor had missed some appointments, which they had recorded as ‘no access’.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

Throughout the period of the complaint, the resident has raised concerns about how the issues she reported and the landlord’s subsequent service delivery may have impacted her mental health.
The Ombudsman is unable to make a determination that the actions or omissions of a landlord have had a causal impact on a person’s health. Such a determination is more appropriate through an insurance claim or by a court. Should the resident wish to pursue a claim relating to the impact on her health, she has the option to seek legal advice.
The Ombudsman has, however, taken into account any general distress and inconvenience that the landlord’s service delivery may have caused.

Policies and procedures

The landlord operates a responsive repairs policy. The policy notes that issues with gas supply and electrical wiring are the landlord’s responsibility. It also notes that a loss of heating in summer should be addressed within five days, and other responsive repairs can take up to 90 working days to be completed, although it aims to address issues within 7 working days.
The landlord operates a two stage complaints policy. The policy notes that it will acknowledge a complaint within two working days and provide a stage one response within 10 working days of an acknowledgement. It will provide a stage two response within 20 working days of its acknowledgement of an escalation request.

Repairs – Gas

The landlord’s voids policy notes that the property should have a working form of space heating and a hot water supply when let. The gas supply should be capped until occupation, at which point the landlord will arrange for the gas to be uncapped.
In this case, the landlord has advised that its specialist gas contractors inspected the property prior to the resident’s occupation. The contractor noted that the gas was presently capped, as per its voids policy. It is not evident that they raised any concerns about the efficacy of the space heating and hot water supply. This service has not been provided with records of this inspection; however, there is no basis to doubt it took place. While it transpired that the supply of gas was faulty, it was nevertheless reasonable for the landlord to rely on the advice from its appropriately qualified contractor that the property was lettable.
It is evident that the landlord also appropriately informed the resident when she moved in about the process of activating the gas supply, as per its policy. While the Ombudsman notes the resident’s dissatisfaction with this process, it is clear that the process is not intended to cause any delay to the connection of the gas supply upon occupation. The landlord has an obligation to manage its funds effectively, and so it is reasonable for it to keep the gas supply capped prior to occupation to avoid any unnecessary expenditure.
Upon being made aware that there was an issue with the gas supply, the landlord appropriately began liaising with the gas network provider to assist in the arrangements for the necessary works. The 12-week timeframe for the works was set by the gas network provider, and so this timeframe was beyond the landlord’s control.
This service has not been provided with evidence to show what discussions were had with the resident at this time. The Ombudsman would expect the landlord to make enquires with the resident about how she would be impacted by the lack of heating and hot water. It is evident that the landlord appropriately installed an electric shower in order to provide the resident with washing facilities. However, it would have been helpful had it recorded any discussions or noted them in formal correspondence to reassure the resident it understood her needs, as well as creating an audit trail of its actions.
As part of the works, the gas contractor intended to run the pipe through the ceiling but encountered possible asbestos, which required a test. While this caused a delay to the completion of the works, it was reasonable for the landlord to ensure necessary precautions were taken.
Given the issues presented by running the pipe through the ceiling, it was reasonable that the contractor instead sought to run the pipe under the floors in order to expediate the completion of the works. The resident has advised this service that when her floor coverings were relayed, this was not done correctly. It is not evident that this concern was raised as part of the formal complaint responded to by the landlord. However, a recommendation has been made below for the landlord to contact the resident to make further enquiries on this issue and provide its position.
As part of her formal complaint, the resident made it clear she was dissatisfied at paying full rent for the period that the gas was not connected. It was also clear that she wanted the issue of compensation to be addressed in the landlord’s formal response. In its stage one response, the landlord did not provide any position on compensation. This would have been frustrating for the resident, and it was a missed opportunity for the landlord to repair the landlord/tenant relationship. This was also not in line with this service’s dispute resolution principles of being fair and putting things right.
While the landlord later offered £150 compensation, it was not clear exactly what this offer related to, as the resident had multiple separate concerns. This, therefore, made it difficult for the resident to understand whether to accept it.
In its stage two response, the landlord provided a significantly greater level of detail about the history of the complaint. This demonstrated an appropriate level of investigation into this part of the complaint. It also appropriately apologised that it did not initially discover the issue and for the impact this had caused the resident. On this occasion, it provided a breakdown of its offer of compensation, which it calculated on a weekly basis and appropriately acknowledged the loss of amenity the issues had caused the resident. In total, it offered £510 for the loss of amenity. It also offered a further £150 as a good will gesture, in addition to the originally offered £150, which it noted was being offered directly by its contractor.
In the Ombudsman’s opinion, this offer amounted to reasonable redress for this element of the complaint. The landlord appropriately acknowledged the impact the delays had caused and also offered a reasonable amount to cover the loss of amenity. The Ombudsman also notes that some of these delays were beyond the landlord’s control, and it also took some steps to mitigate the impact, such as installing the electric shower. The offer was therefore proportionate to the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident. A recommendation has been made that the landlord reiterate this offer, if it has yet to have been accepted.

Repairs – electrical wiring

As noted above, the landlord will complete routine repairs within 90 working days but will aim to ideally complete them within seven working days. The landlord’s repair records show that it logged reports about loose sockets and a beeping buzzer. However, the records do not show when these issues were resolved. The landlord’s records should be sufficiently robust to record all action taken. This will then assist with the landlord’s own investigations and provide an audit trail for the Ombudsman. In its stage two response, the landlord noted it completed the repairs within three and nine working days, respectively. While the latter was slightly beyond its target of seven working days, this was reasonable in the circumstances.
In addition to those two repairs, it is also evident that the landlord’s electrician noted an issue with the boiler wiring, which the resident was made aware of. It is not evident that any update was provided to the resident following the inspection, despite her raising concerns about the lack of updates as part of her complaint. In its stage one response, the landlord simply stated that there were no outstanding issues with the electrical repairs. Given the serious nature of electrical wiring, this would have been unsatisfactory for the resident. It is also evident that the landlord made no attempt to contact her to fully understand her issues before providing this response.
In its stage two response, the landlord provided more information and explained that the issues with the boiler were temporary and should now be resolved. While this extra detail was appropriate, it once again failed to contact the resident to fully understand her concerns. As a result, the resident continues to have concerns about the electrical wiring.
In addition to the lack of updates about the wiring, the resident also raised concerns about missed appointments. In its stage two response, the landlord noted that it had no record of missed appointments. In its later communications when gathering evidence for this service, however, the landlord identified that its contractor had missed some appointments, which it had recorded as ‘no access’. This demonstrates that the landlord’s communication with its contractors was not sufficiently robust for it to have been informed about the missed appointments at the time. It also demonstrates that the landlord failed to carry out a thorough investigation prior to issuing its stage two response. This misinformation would have been frustrating for the resident and has led her to have to expend time and trouble pursuing her complaint through this service.
In summary, the landlord could have done more to accurately record its actions and keep the resident updated. It also failed to carry out a thorough complaint investigation as it did not fully understand the resident’s concerns, nor did it inspect its contractor’s records.
In the circumstances, this amounted to maladministration. An order for £200 has been made to reflect the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident, being £100 for its poor communication and £100 for its poor complaint investigation on this element of the complaint.

Repairs – asbestos

As noted above, it was reasonable for the landlord to carry out an asbestos inspection when concerns were raised as part of the gas works. It is often the case that such an inspection will result in repair works being necessary where inspection holes are made. In such circumstances, the landlord should arrange the necessary repairs within a reasonable timeframe.
In this case, despite the inspection creating holes, the landlord did not raise any works or otherwise make enquires with the resident about the aftermath of the inspection.
On multiple occasions in her communications, the resident raised concerns about a hole in her ceiling following the inspection. She also reiterated several times that she wanted this addressed in the landlord’s formal response. In particular, she noted this in her escalation requests following the issuing being left unaddressed in the stage one response. However, the landlord once again failed to address this issue in its stage two response. This further demonstrates the landlord’s failure to adequately investigate the complaint by discussing the concerns directly with the resident.
In addition to making arrangements for any necessary repairs, the Ombudsman would expect the landlord to keep the resident informed about the outcome of the inspection, especially given the serious nature of asbestos. However, based on the communications provided to this service, the landlord did not keep the resident updated about the outcome. Not only would this have caused distress for the resident, but it also amounted to a further missed opportunity for the landlord to discuss any necessary repairs at the earliest opportunity.
The holes were initially made in September 2023. The resident noted to this service in January 2024 that the issue remained, and it is not evident that any action has subsequently been completed.
Given the landlord’s repeated failure to adequately investigate this element of the complaint and raise appropriate repair works, a finding of maladministration has been made. An order for £400 compensation has been made, being made up of £200 for the landlord’s investigation failures and £200 for the distress and inconvenience caused by delayed repairs or updates. The landlord is also ordered to contact the resident within four weeks of the date of this determination report and enquire about the asbestos damage. It is then to raise any necessary repairs in line with its repairs policy.
The Ombudsman also notes that the resident has referenced concerns about a roof leak which is causing damp and mould in her property. While this concern was not the subject of her formal complaint that has been responded to by the landlord, a recommendation had nevertheless been made for the landlord to contact the resident and enquire about the leak and subsequently raise any necessary works.

Complaints handling

Both the landlord’s complaints policy and this service’s Complaints Handling Code note that a resident does not have to specifically state that their concerns are a ‘formal complaint’. Instead, it can be an expression of dissatisfaction about the landlord’s service.
The resident initially raised concerns on 1 September 2023, through the landlord’s online complaints portal. While she did not specifically state that she wanted it dealt with as a formal complaint, it was evident that she had expressed dissatisfaction with the landlord’s service. The landlord initially chose to address this as a request for service. While this was not what the resident had intended, the landlord appropriately advised her about how it had chosen to address her communication. This gave the resident the opportunity to clarify that she wanted the issues addressed as a formal complaint, which it then recorded as a formal complaint. While it would have been helpful to have raised a formal complaint in the first instance, the landlord was transparent about its approach, and it subsequently opened a complaint when it received clarification. This would not, therefore, amount to service failure.
Following its stage one response, the resident clearly articulated her dissatisfaction with the response and specifically noted the issues that she wanted to be addressed. Despite this being recorded on the landlord’s online complaints portal, the landlord failed to acknowledge her communication or take steps to clarify the issues. This led the resident to have to expend time and effort raising her concerns through this service. It should not take the intervention of this service for a landlord to provide a complaint response.
The resident initially raised her escalation request on 21 September 2023, but the landlord did not provide its stage two response until 11 December 2023. The landlord’s failure to initially acknowledge the resident’s escalation request meant that there was an unreasonable delay to its final resolution of the complaint. This would have caused frustration for the resident.
This delay amounted to service failure, for which an order has been made for compensation of £100 to reflect the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 53(b) of the Scheme, and in the Ombudsman’s opinion, there was reasonable redress offered by the landlord for its service failure in respect of the complaints regarding its response to the resident’s reports about gas repair issues in her property.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in respect of its response to the resident’s reports about both electrical wiring and asbestos repair issues at her property.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was service failure by the landlord in respect of its complaints handling.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

The Ombudsman orders the landlord to pay compensation of £700, comprising:
1. £200 for any distress and inconvenience caused to the resident by its failures in relation to the electrical wiring;
2. £400 for any distress and inconvenience caused to the resident by its failures in relation to the asbestos works;
3. £100 for its ineffective complaints handling.
This amount must be paid within four weeks of the date of this determination.
Within four weeks of the date of this determination report, the landlord is to enquire about the asbestos damage reported by the resident and raise any necessary repairs, in line with its repairs policy.

Recommendations

The landlord is to contact the resident and include the following:
1. Reiterate its offer of £810 in relation to the gas repairs, if this is yet to have been accepted by the resident.
2. Discuss her concerns regarding her carpets and provide its position.
3. Make enquires about the roof leak and raise any necessary repairs.