North Tyneside Council (202219748)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202219748

North Tyneside Council

25 September 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 response to the resident’s concerns about:
   1. Sounds from his toilet.
   2. Multiple staff attending a repair appointment.

Background

2. The resident is the tenant of the landlord. On 6 July 2022, he reported a leak from his toilet cistern running onto his bathroom floor. Its repair records showed that it carried out a repair to his toilet the following day to renew a ball valve and fitting, and returned on 11 July 2022 to complete the repair.
3. The resident raised a stage 1 complaint with the landlord on 11 July 2022. He said he was unhappy with the repairs to the toilet as he could hear dripping in the toilet cistern, despite the operative informing him that this was normal. The resident highlighted that no dripping noise was previously present and wanted the landlord to carry out a full repair as he was concerned about the cistern overflowing.
4. The landlord issued its stage 1 response to the resident on 29 July 2022 which confirmed the repairs it had carried out to the toilet. It said that it had now attended to address the repair to the toilet on three occasions and it was confident that no further work was required. In response to a subsequent point raised by the resident that 4 staff members, including an electrician, had attended his property together, the landlord explained that this was due to a ‘flag’ against his property that staff should not attend alone. It said that this was applied to his file previously after his prior conduct “gave cause for concern”.
5. The resident subsequently escalated his complaint, which the landlord responded to on 25 August 2022. In this, it noted his concerns with the number of staff that attended on 11 July 2022, and that his toilet was “still making a whistling noise”. The landlord proposed to carry out another inspection of the toilet by an operative who had not previously been involved in the repair.
6. The landlord presumed that, of the 4 staff present on 11 July 2022, two were plumbers to provide additional opinions on the toilet, and one was the team leader who was present to attempt to resolve the issue. It agreed that the presence of 4 staff was excessive and potentially intimidating for the resident. The landlord apologised for this and said it would not send so many staff together in future. It relayed when the ‘flag’ was applied to his file, when it had been reviewed, and that it was present to ensure the well-being of staff.
7. The resident escalated his complaint to the final stage of the landlord’s complaints procedure. It responded to this, on 10 November 2022, to confirm that its further inspection of the toilet had found no defects but nevertheless it had attended on 8 November 2022 to replace the ball valve and no sounds were observed after this. The landlord said that there were insufficient grounds for consideration of the complaint at the final stage, and declined to progress the complaint further.
8. The resident informed the Ombudsman on 18 January 2023 that he remained dissatisfied as he felt the landlord’s apology was superficial, and his toilet continued to make noises.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about sounds from his toilet

9. The landlord’s tenancy agreement with the resident confirms that it is responsible for the repair and maintenance of the installations in the property for the provision of sanitation. The landlord’s repairs handbook provides for three priorities of repairs – emergency, urgent and routine – and confirms that all appointed repairs should be completed within 45 working days.
10. When a landlord receives a report that it has carried out a repair unsatisfactorily, its first action should be to inspect the repair. It is reasonable for it to seek a second opinion from an appropriately qualified tradesperson or surveyor, and it is reasonable for it to rely on the opinions of these appropriately qualified staff.
11. The landlord responded appropriately to the resident’s initial report of a leak from his toilet cistern by attending promptly within a day of the report, and carrying out a repair. It was not disputed that it carried out three repairs on that day, to replace 2 ball valves and renew a washer to stop the leak, in response to the resident’s concerns about the dripping noise. When the resident reported that the toilet was still making a dripping noise, the landlord returned 4 days later to install a part to stop the noise and remained to observed that this was successful.
12. The landlord responded reasonably by attending promptly and carrying out repairs to stop the leak and address the resident’s concerns about the dripping noise. It was therefore reasonable for the landlord to assert in its stage 1 response that no further works were required. While the resident reported his concerns with the dripping noise, it is noted that there was no report of the cistern actually leaking. Therefore, it was reasonable for it to say that no further repair was required.
13. In response to the resident’s escalation of his complaint and his maintaining that the cistern was making a noise which concerned him, it arranged for an independent inspection of the toilet by an operative who had not previously visited the property. This occurred on 19 September 2022, and the operative found no issues with the toilet. This demonstrated that the landlord paid due consideration to the resident’s concerns and made reasonable efforts to satisfy itself that there was no defect with the toilet which required repair.
14. The landlord attended the resident’s property again on 8 November 2022, after his report 6 days previously, to replace the ball valve in the toilet to address his ongoing concerns about the noises from the toilet. This was a prompt response and again demonstrated that it made reasonable efforts to address the resident’s concerns.
15. Overall, there was no evidence of a failure by the landlord in its response to the resident’s concerns about sounds from his toilet. It attended his property within reasonable timeframes, sought additional opinions on the reported issue, and carried out repairs to address his concerns.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about multiple staff attending a repair appointment

16. The landlord’s “violent warning marker (VWM)” guide states that it will apply these ( a ‘flag’) to a person’s file to manage the risk to its staff when there is a risk of violent behaviour from that person. This guide states that the resident will be informed when the VWM is applied to their file and they will have 28 days to appeal this at the time. After this, the VWM will be reviewed on an annual basis and the resident will only be informed when the VWM is removed. When a VWM exists, the guide states that staff should “carry out visits in pairs where applicable”.
17. The landlord confirmed to the resident, in its stage 1 and 2 responses, that a “flag” was in place on his file to ensure that staff did not work alone. It reasonably explained that this was “to ensure the wellbeing of all parties”. It was therefore appropriate for the landlord to ensure that its staff did not attend the resident’s property alone. The above guide does not state that staff should attend in groups larger than pairs, nor does it expressly prohibit this. It would therefore fall to the landlord to ensure that an appropriate number of staff attend, as required by the circumstances.
18. It is noted that there was dispute over the landlord’s approach to the toilet repair, and it was reasonable for it to have another appropriately qualified operative present to provide another opinion, which the landlord suggested was the case in its stage 2 response. The landlord did not dispute the resident’s report that there were 4 staff members, including an electrician, and it reasonably acknowledged that this was excessive and potentially intimidating for the resident. It may have been useful for the landlord explain why the fourth person was there, as the evidence available showed no clear requirement for them to be present.
19. There was no evidence of a failure by the landlord in it having 4 staff present for the repair appointment on 11 July 2022. The landlord acted in accordance with its VWM guide by not attending alone, and it was reasonable for it to arrange for another qualified operative to be present to provide another opinion on the repair. It addressed the resident’s concerns about feeling intimidated by this by apologising and acknowledging that the number of staff was excessive. The landlord also sought to reassure the resident that it would not attend again with more staff than necessary. However, the landlord will be recommended to write to the resident to explain the purpose of each staff member present on 11 July 2022 to provide further reassurance.

Determination

20. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about:
    1. Sounds from his toilet.
    2. Multiple staff attending a repair appointment.

Recommendations

21. The landlord is recommended to:
    1. Write to the resident to explain the purpose of each staff member present on 11 July 2022.
    2. Provide, in the above letter, assurance on how it will handle future visits to his property.