Newham Council (201913436)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 201913436

Newham Council

21 January 2022

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

This complaint is about the landlord’s handling of:
1. the resident’s right to buy application;
2. the resident’s request to meet with the mayor;
3. a leak from above into the resident’s property;
4. the resident’s request for bathroom adaptations.

Jurisdiction

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.
Paragraph 39(m) of the Scheme states that the Ombudsman will not investigate complaints which ‘fall properly within the jurisdiction of another Ombudsman, regulator or complaint-handling body’.
In this case, the resident’s landlord is a local authority and it therefore provides functions as both a landlord and as a local authority. The Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman deals with complaints about local authorities.
Complaints about the right to buy process concern the landlord’s actions as a local authority in relation to the disposal or sale of its assets rather than their actions as the resident’s landlord.
The resident’s concerns regarding his right to buy application relate to allegations of fraud and deception and that inaccurate information was used during the valuation process. The Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman is best placed to consider this complaint.
The mayor is the political leader of the local authority. The resident’s concerns regarding the mayor relate to an allegation that his request to meet them was overlooked and that his ‘constitutional rights’ were breached. The role of the mayor and the process by which constituents can meet them are dealt with in the landlord’s capacity as a local authority. The landlord’s website confirms that there is a separate process for complaints about councillors and the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman would be best placed to deal with this complaint.
As per paragraph 39(m) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the resident’s complaints about the landlord’s handling of his right to buy application and his request to meet with the mayor are therefore out of jurisdiction.
The other complaints about the landlord’s handling of a leak from above into the resident’s property and the resident’s request for bathroom adaptations are within the jurisdiction of this Service and considered below.

Background and summary of events

Background

The resident’s tenancy began on 18 July 20211 and the tenancy agreement shows that the property is a one-bedroom first floor flat.
During the period covered by this complaint, the resident informed the landlord that he had various health conditions, including mobility problems.
The tenancy agreement terms and conditions show that the landlord is obliged to ‘maintain the structure, outside and shared areas’ of the property and that it will carry out repairs that it is responsible for ‘within a reasonable period’.
The landlord’s website shows that it includes major water leaks and dangerous electrical faults within its definition of emergency repairs and that it expects to respond to reports of this type within four hours.
The landlord also has a responsibility under the Housing Health and Safety Rating System (HHSRS), introduced by The Housing Act 2004, to assess hazards and risks within its rented properties. Damp and mould growth are a potential hazard and therefore the landlord is required to consider whether any mould problems in its properties amount to a hazard and require remedying.
The government’s right to buy scheme advises residents that there is ‘no requirement for the landlord to repair the property because you’re interested in buying it, and most non-essential repairs will stop once you have submitted your right to buy application’.
The landlord has a ‘home adaptations’ page on its website that shows that an occupational therapist will assess the resident’s property and ‘if the recommendation for an adaptation is approved’, it will carry out the work at no cost to the resident.
The landlord has a corporate complaints policy that includes two formal complaint stages with responses required within 20 working days (at stage one) and 15 working days (at stage two). It adds that it will usually not be able to consider matters through the complaints process that occurred more than 12 months previously.
The landlord has ‘complaint compensation policy guidance’ that shows that it can make payments in cases where ‘there has been clear service failure, delay, injustice, effect or costs incurred’. It suggests amounts of up to £150 for time and trouble caused to a resident over four months or more and £400-£500 for ‘very significant’ delay and distress.
The resident has advised this Service that he reported repairs and adaptations issues at the property since the beginning of his tenancy. However, this investigation is concentrated on events from 2018 as this was the focus of the complaint and the evidence received.
The Ombudsman considers matters which have exhausted the landlord’s complaints procedure. This is so that we can be sure the landlord has had a reasonable opportunity to resolve the issues internally before we intervene. This Service cannot therefore make a determination on the handling of new events that arose since the complaint exhausted the landlord’s complaints procedure in June 2020 – nevertheless, some of these events have been referred to below for context.

Summary of Events

The landlord acknowledged a request from the resident in March 2017 for it to quote for bathroom adaptations works which he was willing to pay for. It advised him that its technical team would consider the request.
The resident made a report on 16 March 2018 that he had yellow staining to his bathroom ceiling due to a leak from the toilet above that he had tried to seal himself 18 months previously. He asked if he needed to report this or take it up with the resident upstairs.
During March-April 2018, the resident chased the bathroom adaptation request and the landlord asked for detailed plans so it could consider granting permission.
The landlord has provided an occupational therapist assessment report dated 20 July 2018 that recommended ‘provision of a level access shower facility’. During August 2018, the local authority occupational therapy team ‘accepted’ a level shower installation and told the resident that its repairs service would be in contact in the ‘next few months’.
The resident chased progress with the level shower installation in April 2019. The landlord advised this Service that there was a delay in the tendering process for the adaptation works.
The resident raised the bathroom adaptations with the landlord on 27 September 2019 when he asked for specifics of works to be done and said he had concerns about the installation and timescale. The landlord replied in late September to early October 2019, advising that the works were not chargeable to him and that the tender process for works had been completed.
The resident wrote to the landlord on 3 October 2019 – he said he wished to decline the landlord’s offer for its contractor to visit the property to assess the adaptation works required as he would instead make a right to buy application. He said that he would expect the right to buy valuation to reflect the required adaptation works and leak damage to his bathroom.
The resident wrote to the landlord on 9 October 2019 – he referred to having asked for the adaptation works to be cancelled and that he had instead made a right to buy application on 3 October 2019.
The landlord wrote to the resident on 12 December 2019 to update him on the adaptation works, advising that:
1. the occupational therapist agreed adaptation works to convert the bathroom to a wet room during 2018
2. its repairs team visited the property earlier in 2019 to agree a final design for the works and, after a visit in March 2019, the last update was that the resident was fourth on the list awaiting works
3. adaptation works had been put on hold due to the resident’s right to buy application.
The landlord issued a right to buy offer notice to the resident on 15 January 2020 that showed that it was aware that the property was affected by water damage in the bathroom and bedroom ‘due to what appears to be an ongoing plumbing issue to the flat above’.
The resident wrote to the landlord on 19 January 2020. This was in response to the landlord’s offer notice but also included concerns about ongoing water damage to the property from the flat above (that he said had been ongoing for four years) and a comment that he would seek to install a wet room (which he said he had been requesting for six years). He added that the water may be sewage and that it was coming through electrical conduits.
The landlord’s repairs records show that it raised and completed an order on 21 January 2020 to check electrics in the property were safe. It also raised an order on 21 January 2020 to check water ingress into the property which it recorded as being completed on 24 January 2020. The related inspection report confirmed that the upstairs property and soil stack should be checked for leaks and recommended re-plastering in the bathroom and bedroom due to damage from leaks.
The landlord’s repairs records show that it raised orders on 24 January 2020 to carry out plastering repairs to the bedroom and bathroom. It noted that these would not usually have been carried out due to the ‘live’ right to buy application but an exception was made in this instance because the leak damage had been caused before the application was made. These works were not completed prior to the pandemic-related lockdown in March 2020.
The resident’s doctor provided a medical letter dated 24 January 2020 that confirmed the conditions he had advised the landlord of in the past, noting he was ‘frail’ and had ‘problems with breathing and mobilising’.
The landlord wrote to the resident on 30 January 2020. It advised that:
1. the resident’s right to buy application meant that no repair works could be conducted to the property and the ‘valuation of the property reflects the current condition of the property on the date of the valuation in January 2020 therefore it has taken into account the structural defect issue as noted’
2. a technical surveyor attended the property on 29 November 2019 and found the leak had stopped but there was damage to walls in the bathroom and bedroom
3. it had raised a repairs job for an electrician to attend within 12 hours to check electrics were safe and would arrange for a plumber to attend the above flat as an emergency to check where the leak was coming from.
The landlord issued a revised right to buy offer notice to the resident on 17 February 2020 that again mentioned the water damage issue.
The landlord wrote to the resident’s MP on 18 February 2020. This related to progress of the resident’s right to buy application but also advised that the wet room installation had been suspended as all but emergency works were cancelled once a right to buy was received. It added that the resident could withdraw the application if he wished for any repair works to proceed.
The resident submitted a complaint to the landlord dated 1 May 2020. This related to a request to meet the mayor, a right to buy application from October 2019, his entitlement to an adult services grant and historic repairs issues but also that:
1. he had asked the landlord to assist with conversion of the bathroom to a wet room since 2012 due to safety issues he experienced when showering but they had shown no interest in helping him
2. there had been multiple visits by landlord staff during January-March 2019 with a view to conducting property alterations following an occupational therapy assessment but no progress had been made since
3. repairs to the bathroom in the flat above in 2016 had caused a leak through his bathroom ceiling for which a plumber did not attend until 2018
4. a temporary plumbing fix had been done but water pressure had loosened pipework and caused severe damage in his property
5. the repairs department inspected his flat in January 2020 and made appointments for three repairs during March 2020 but these were not attended to.
The resident’s MP submitted an enquiry on his behalf on 8 June 2020 – this asked whether the complaint investigation may cause delay to the right to buy process and advised that the re-plastering of walls in the bathroom and bedroom would at least allow him to refurbish the bedroom.
The landlord’s internal records show that it confirmed on 18 June 2020 that it had ‘agreed to trace and remedy the leak and make good damage caused to the walls and ceilings in the bathroom and a wall in the bedroom’ but that the pandemic-related guidance meant that it was carrying out emergency works only.
The landlord’s repairs records show that it raised a new order for the bathroom and bedroom plastering works on 18 June 2020 with appointments made for 23 June 2020 and 10 July 2020. The landlord advised this Service that these jobs were subsequently cancelled because the resident wanted the adaptation works to be done rather than the repairs it had raised.
The landlord issued a final complaint response on 18 June 2020. It said it had dealt with the matter at the final stage of its complaints process given the enquiries to date and concluded that:
1. a property visit in January 2020 had been to check there were no health and safety related repairs to complete
2. although no repairs fell into the urgent or health and safety classification, a one-off plastering repair was agreed but the government’s pandemic-related restrictions in March 2020 meant that this job could not be attended to
3. it had been explained on 18 February 2020 that it would not carry out bathroom adaptation works due to the right to buy application
4. the resident could either arrange the bathroom adaptation works privately after the property purchase or withdraw the application, allow the landlord to complete works and then commence a new right to buy for which the property value would factor in the works completed
5. ‘there was a delay in implementing the adaptation works agreed by the Adult Social Care Team’ but it could no longer complete them given the right to buy
6. plastering works would nevertheless be done and an appointment had been made for 23 June 2020.
The resident wrote to the landlord and this Service on 21 June 2020, escalating his dissatisfaction on the grounds that:
1. water damage had commenced four years earlier and had caused him to go down the right to buy route
2. a lack of duty of care regarding the bathroom adaptations had been ongoing for seven years.

Summary of Events after landlord complaints process

The resident advised the landlord and this Service on 11 July 2020 that staff had attended the day before for the plastering works but left without completing the job, he had noticed further damp and bugs in the property and he was considering withdrawing his right to buy.
The resident’s solicitor submitted a disrepair letter of claim on 11 August 2020 that referred to damp in the bedroom and bathroom and defective bathroom drainage. It proposed the appointment of a single joint expert.
An expert disrepair report was produced on 26 October 2020, following an inspection on 23 September 2020. The report showed that:
1. there was water damage to the bathroom with blown plasterwork to the walls and ceiling, a corroded radiator and water rot to the skirting board
2. there was a defective bedroom wall, likely due to a leak from above and a breach in the bathroom splashback with black mould on wall surfaces
3. it recommended investigations into the bathroom of the flat above, re-plastering to the bathroom and bedroom, renewal of the bathroom suite, replacement of the vinyl floor covering and radiator, a mould wash and decorations.
The landlord wrote to the resident’s solicitor in October-November 2020 – it asked whether it was agreed that it could undertake the recommended works.
The landlord and resident exchanged emails during March 2021 that show that discussions were ongoing about proposed works and that the latter had asked to combine repairs with the wet room adaptations and other works he wished to undertake.
The resident wrote to the landlord on 19 August 2021, rejecting a compensation payment of £150 that he said it had offered for missing an appointment related to the plastering works in 2020. The landlord advised this Service that this related to a complaint that the resident made in March 2021.
The resident wrote to the landlord in September 2021, seeking a meeting with the ‘decision makers’ and confirming that he had offered to undertake the full cost of the adaptations required. He added on 23 November 2021 that he was still waiting on a couple of answers from them so the right to buy could be finalised.
The resident advised this Service and the landlord on 15 January 2022 that the leak into his bathroom was continuing and had been affecting the property below for the previous month.

Assessment and findings

Repairs

The resident made a report in March 2018 that there was a leak from the property above into his bathroom and that this had damaged his decorations. There is no evidence that the landlord responded to this report or raised any repairs orders to address the leak – this was inappropriate albeit there is no evidence that the resident raised further concern about this before he submitted his right to buy application in October 2019.
The landlord advised the resident in correspondence it sent in January 2020 that it had inspected the property on 29 November 2019 and found that the leak had stopped. However, there is no note of this visit or inspection outcome within its repair records and the resident and landlord both contradicted this finding in January 2020 when the former reported the leak was still present and the latter’s right to buy offer mentioned ‘an ongoing plumbing issue’ – this indicates that even if the landlord did attend in November 2019, its investigations were insufficient.
The right to buy scheme meant that the landlord was only obliged to complete essential repairs at the property from October 2019 when the resident submitted his right to buy application. The resident indicated on 19 January 2020 that water damage to the property was ongoing. Given it was only obliged to conduct essential works, it was reasonable for the landlord to inspect the property within a week to check whether any of the required works fell within this category – for example, it raised order to check the bathroom electrics and leak from above. It was also pro-active and resolution-focused to raise non-essential repairs orders to the bathroom and bedroom plastering despite it no longer being required to carry out such works.
However, the inspection report of 24 January 2020 noted that the property upstairs and soil stack should be checked for leaks. There is no evidence that this recommendation was followed up and the resident has advised as recently as January 2022 that the leak has continued to cause damage. Although the landlord was only obliged to conduct essential works at the resident’s property, its failure to ensure the leak into the bathroom was remedied was unreasonable – the landlord should have resolved the leak to prevent further damage to the resident’s property, including to electrics.
Further, although there was some inevitable delay to the promised plastering works due to the pandemic-related lockdown from March 2020, the landlord failed to follow up on these works as restrictions eased. Indeed, the plastering works were still outstanding when a surveyor inspected the property in October 2020 – this was unreasonable.
In summary, there is no record that the landlord addressed the resident’s report of a leak from above in March 2018. Although it was not obliged to complete non-essential works at the property from October 2019 (due to a right to buy application), it failed to ensure the leak into the bathroom was stopped and contributed to delays in progressing promised remedial works to the bathroom and bedroom from January 2020.

Adaptations

The resident expressed interest in bathroom adaptations being made at the property from at least as early as 2017 but the request he made was that he would pay for the works. The landlord asked for detailed plans from the resident but there is no record that these were offered to the landlord – there was therefore no failure on its part in failing to agree to the resident’s request.
The landlord is a local authority and its occupational therapist team submitted a report in July 2018 that recommended a ‘level shower’ installation; its housing department accepted this recommendation the following month. The landlord subsequently conducted a tendering process for the works and references have been made to visits to the property during January-March 2019. However, there is no record that the landlord was ready to commence the adaptation works until October 2019 when it told the resident that its contractor wished to assess the works needed – this delay of more than 12 months was unreasonable.
The occupational therapy report meant that the landlord knew that the bathroom adaptations were needed to make bathing and personal hygiene easier for the resident, given difficulty he had in using the bath due to lower limb restrictions and pain. The landlord was aware of the resident’s vulnerabilities and the impact of it not installing level access washing facilities. Its failure to expedite the tendering process and related works was significant given the vulnerability of the resident and meant that he had to chase progress during 2019.
When the resident submitted a right to buy application on 3 October 2019, he advised the landlord around the same time that he would make arrangements for the adaptations himself. There was therefore no service failure on the part of the landlord for any delays since October 2019 in bathroom adaptation works being conducted, particularly given it later offered to carry out the works and amend the right to buy valuation accordingly.
In summary, there were excessive delays in the landlord progressing adaptations to the resident’s bathroom from July 2018, when it received the occupational therapist recommendations. It was unreasonable that it was not ready to commence works by October 2019 (when the resident decided to submit a right to buy application), particularly given the resident’s vulnerabilities.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure by the landlord in its handling of a leak from above into the resident’s property.
In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s request for bathroom adaptations.

Reasons

The landlord did not act on the resident’s initial leak from above report in March 2018 and delayed unnecessarily from January 2020 in resolving the leak and carrying out remedial works to the bathroom and bedroom.
The landlord delayed unreasonably in conducting bathroom adaptation works between July 2018 and October 2019.

Orders

The landlord to write to the resident to apologise for the service failures identified in this report.
The landlord to pay the resident compensation of £550, made up of:
1. £150 in recognition of the distress and inconvenience caused by the service failure in its handling of a leak from above into his property;
2. £400 in recognition of the distress and inconvenience caused by the maladministration in its handling of his request for bathroom adaptations.
The landlord to inspect the bathroom of the property above the resident’s, and the soil stack, to ensure that the leak into the resident’s property is stopped; the landlord should then write to the resident to confirm if it is still willing to conduct remedial works to his bathroom and bedroom, advising of a timescale for these works if so.

The landlord should confirm compliance with these orders to this Service within four weeks of the date of this report.

The landlord to review its handling of the bathroom adaptation works from July 2018 to October 2019 and create an action plan within eight weeks of the date of this order to ensure that it avoids delays with these types of works in future.