Southend-on-Sea Borough Council (202115415)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202115415

Southend-on-Sea Borough Council

24 May 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

The complaint is about the landlord’s response to the resident’s:
1. Reports of repairs to the communal parts of the block.
2. Reports of repairs to the property.
3. Reports of antisocial behaviour (ASB).
4. Request for an allocated parking space.

Background and summary of events

Background

The resident has a secure tenancy agreement with the landlord that started in 2009. The landlord is a local authority. The property is a one bedroom, ground floor flat in a small low-rise block with a communal front garden.
The landlord told us that it was aware the resident had various medical conditions including depression and mobility issues and previously had a support worker.
The conditions of tenancy document says that the landlord is responsible for, among other things, the following repairs, wall tiling and sealing around fittings, baths, basins, toilets and shower trays, pipe boxing, extractor fans and doors that lead to the outside of the property and the door frames. It also says that residents must tell the landlord immediately about repairs and allow access to the property at all reasonable times to, among other things, carry out repairs.
The tenancy agreement makes no reference to a parking space. The leaseholders handbook notes that most blocks had shared parking areas and was on a first come, first served basis and that no-one has their own parking space and asks residents to be considerate when parking.
The landlord did not provide a copy of its repairs policy and procedure which was specifically for tenants but did so for leaseholders. On that basis, we have assumed that these timescales apply to tenants also. Repairs are categorised as follows:

Emergency – where life is at risk: within 1 hour to make safe, to be completed within 24 hours

Urgent – where immediate danger to life or limb – within 3 working days

Semi urgent – where a repair is necessary but no danger – within 6 working days

Non-urgent – within 21 calendar days

Minor repairs – within 2 calendar months

The landlord told the Ombudsman that its estates team were responsible for sweeping/de-weeding the car park area and the maintenance of the grass and any shrubs within the grounds. Grass cutting in the area is completed on a six–weekly schedule, with the grass being cut at least once during this period.
The landlord’s website gives information about the maintenance of communal areas. This says that paths will be swept clear of grass, leaves and litter after every grass cut (which it says will take place between 14 and 16 times a year). Hedges in communal areas will be trimmed twice a year and hardstanding spaces like washing drying areas will be kept clear of moss, sprayed annually and litter-picked each month. The website says that, although the landlord does not undertake planting or landscaping, regular weeding was carried out.
The landlord’s procedure notes for ASB say that reports of ASB can be made to it in many different ways including by post, email or telephone. The notes also say that, upon receipt of a report, it will undertake basic checks to determine if the incident is ASB and, if appropriate, carry out a risk assessment. Where a report includes a criminal element, the assigned officer will liaise with the police to obtain further information or advice. In urgent situations where there is a risk of harm, the assigned officer will contact the reporting person or victim by telephone or face-to-face within one working day; for all other enquiries the officer will contact the person or victim by telephone or face-to-face within five to ten working days, depending on the risk identified.
The landlord has a two-stage complaint procedure. It aims to respond at both stages within ten working days.

Summary of events

On 26 November 2018 the landlord noted a call from the resident in which she told it that there was “an extremely large crack in front porch” which she said she had reported on 19 October 2018. She said a builder had advised her that the problem was “structural and dangerous and needs looking at”. On the same day the resident told the landlord that the lights were not working at the side and back of the property. This was added to the repair log and the item is marked as closed (although no date is given for the completion of this repair).
In December 2018 the repairs log evidences the landlord investigating water pooling on the porch roof.
In a call to the landlord on 28 February 2019 the landlord noted the resident had asked if she could install a security light at the front of the property because “she has had had a lot of trouble with people banging on her windows”.
On 31 July 2019 the landlord noted a call from the resident in which she said that the communal path to the side and back of the property was “overgrown and full of rubbish” and that the area had not been cleaned since the fence went up.
On 6 October 2019 the repairs log evidences that there was a leak and water was coming through the wall. The repair log notes that an uncontainable leak was coming from the bathroom but the resident could not see source of leak; it noted the electrics had not been affected. The instruction was to “trace and remedy”. This was treated as an emergency repair; on the same day the operative noted that the overflow was disconnected and the leak stopped.
On 17 October 2019 the repair log evidences that the cold feed under the bath, which had been capped, required repair. The operative noted that the broken bath panel was replaced.
The repairs log evidences that on 10 August 2020 the previous leak in the bathroom was happening again and the resident could see water coming into the lounge below after a bath; the bathroom floor was also lifting from the water. This was treated as an emergency repair. On the same day the operative noted that he had found the ball valve to be leaking and had replaced it and that he had to remove tiles and boxing to do so. The operative also noted that the boxing in was very wet and the area needed to dry out before any making good was undertaken and new tiles were required to cover one square meter of the bathroom.
The repairs log evidences that the landlord tried to gain access on 7 September and 13 October 2020 to carry out the making good but could not gain access.
On 11 February 2021 the resident made a formal complaint to the landlord. She said that she had previously complained about a leak in the property last year and other works not undertaken. She said she had not received a response, even after her most recent complaint approximately two months ago.
On 3 March 2021 the landlord noted a call from the resident in which it had discussed her complaint about the leak. It also noted that she had other complaints which related to problems she was having with her neighbour, such as him throwing stones at her windows at night and the relocation of the washing line in the communal area.
On 9 March 2021 the landlord noted that an appointment had been made to survey the property the following day after the resident said there was a leak from the bathroom causing mould on the living room wall and there were also issues with the porch and windows.
On 12 March 2021 the repairs log evidences that boxing and tiling were required following a leak in the bathroom and floor slats needed to be re-stuck down in the living room where they had lifted; this work was carried out on 31 March 2021.
On 15 March 2021 the landlord noted it has tried to speak to the resident about the ASB issues but there was no response.
On 22 March 2021 the repairs log evidences that the rotary washing line should be relocated lower down the raised garden so it did not snag the fence and also that the parking sign should be reinstalled to the front car park entrance.
On 26 March 2021 the landlord told the resident that all residents – whether leaseholders or tenants – had the same right to park at the scheme. It explained that parking was not allocated and was available on a first come, first served basis. It said, if some residents tried to “monopolise” the parking spaces, there was not much it could do about it as it was not a breach of tenancy or lease conditions, unless the vehicles were commercial vehicles or were unroadworthy.
On 6 April 2021 the repairs log evidences that the main stopcock was dripping and that the lounge floor needed reglueing.
On 12 April 2021 the landlord noted that the internal works had not been completed at the last visit and a new appointment had been arranged for 14 April 2021 to go through the outstanding works.
On 10 May 2021 the resident wrote to the landlord making several points:
1. She had been told the parking bay outside the property was hers and would not have moved if she did not have a car park space.
2. Guttering on the houses next door had not been repaired which meant stuff blows off and also water from there runs down the path next to the property.
3. There was no lighting on the pathway at the rear of the property.
4. She had been attacked on several occasions and no-one had come to see her; she said the neighbour had been throwing rocks at her window for over nine months. The neighbour also moved things around outside her bedroom window and had been staring in.
5. Some repairs were still outstanding.
On 13 May 2021 the landlord noted the guttering was from a private property, but it would raise an order for the external lighting (which it did the same day). It would also investigate the other points raised. The repair log evidences that the repair to the light was completed on 21 June 2021.
On 18 May 2021 the landlord wrote to the resident asking her to call it following her report of ASB. It said it had tried to call her several times but had been unable to speak with her.
On 21 May 2021 the landlord responded to the resident at stage one of its formal complaint procedure. The main points were:
1. The property was not advertised as having an allocated parking space. All residents whether leaseholders or tenants have the same right to park at the scheme. Parking is not allocated and was available on a first come, first served basis.
2. Regarding the guttering on the private houses next door, the landlord said it was sorry that this was something it could not assist with as the owners of those properties were private occupiers. It said it had asked a surveyor to investigate the points raised regarding the communal path and garden area and an order had been raised concerning the communal lighting.
3. It had made attempts to contact the resident to discuss the allegations of ASB but had been unable to make contact. It had written to her on 18 May 2021 for further information to enable it to investigate any matters in line with its ASB policy. It asked the resident to contact its tenancy services team. It added that any criminal matters should be reported to the police, with incident numbers being provided to it so that it could also investigate.
The landlord explained how the resident could escalate the complaint.
On 27 May 2021 the resident told the landlord she “was not letting the parking go” as she had been told it was her space outside the property. She said no one had called her adding that she did not answer private numbers and asked the landlord to email her.
On the same day the landlord moved the rotary washing line.
On 21 June 2021 the landlord repaired the light at the rear of the property.
On 29 June 2021 the landlord responded to the resident at the final stage of its formal complaint procedure. The main points were:
1. No repairs were outstanding and listed the repairs that had been competed including:
  1. Repaired the leak on the wash hand basin which had affected the lounge flooring. It had repaired the leak, boxed in the pipework and refixed the vinyl flooring strips.
  2. Renewed broken tiles in the bathroom.
  3. Relocated the communal rotary washing line.
2. It was monitoring the crack in the porch to ensure no further movement before a full repair was carried out. It assured the resident the crack was not urgent or dangerous.
3. The rear outside light had been repaired on 18 June 2021. It apologised that the repair had previously been closed in error.
4. It was satisfied that the guttering on the neighbouring property was not damaging the block. It asked the resident to report any further repairs to it.
5. The landlord said it had tried to contact the resident in May 2021 to discuss the ASB allegations and this included writing to her asking her to contact it but it did not receive a response at that time. The landlord noted that the resident had said that rocks had been thrown at her window and also someone had tried to attack her. The landlord said these were criminal matters and said it was important for her to report them to the police. It said it would also consider if there was action it could take under its powers. It stressed that action would depend on relevant evidence being available which could be in the form of diary sheets, photographs, sound or video recordings or witness statements.
6. It said that the resident had said that she did not respond to calls where there was no caller ID (which would be all its numbers) so it would email her to arrange either a telephone or face–to–face discussion with her, where it could take details of the ASB, dates the incidents took place and agree an action plan. It reminded the resident to report all ASB to it.
7. It said there was nothing it could add to the parking issue. It confirmed that when she signed up for the property there was no reference to use of the car park or that there was allocated parking on the road where the property was situated. The landlord said it did not have allocated parking in any of the car parks it managed so it would not be possible to allocate parking to her or any other tenant. It added it had written to everyone in the block asking them to be considerate when using the car park and reminding them that spaces were limited and for the use of everyone living in the block.
The landlord signposted the resident to the Ombudsman.
When the resident approached the Ombudsman, she said the landlord left a leak for a year before putting matters right and she had concerns that the porch “might collapse”. She said it had deteriorated and was now difficult to open. She said she “felt unsafe” as part of a guttering had fallen off the adjacent property. With regard to the parking space, the resident said that she had been told that a parking space was hers when she looked at the property before she moved in. The resident also said that her health had been affected by the actions of the landlord.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s response to reports of repairs to the communal parts of the block

The issues the resident raised were a broken light at the rear of the property; an overgrown communal garden, part of a drainpipe falling off a neighbouring property and the relocation of a washing line.
The landlord’s handling of the repair of the broken light was not appropriate. The resident reported this on 10 May 2021 and it was repaired on 21 June 2021 which is slightly outside the timescales given (paragraph 5). It would not be reasonable to class this as a minor repair because it affected the safety of residents in the block. The delay in completing this repair was a service failure.
The landlord’s initial handling of the overgrown garden was reasonable by asking a surveyor to look into this matter. However, it would have been good customer service for the landlord to have feedback to the resident the outcome of this inspection. Furthermore, this Service has not seen evidence of work completed by the estates team at the block (paragraph 6). It is clear the resident considers this matter outstanding and an order has been made, below, to resolve this matter.
The landlord’s response to the resident about the issue of the drainpipe falling off the adjacent property was reasonable because these properties are not owned by the landlord and was therefore not able to intervene. However, it would have been good customer service for the landlord to have signposted the resident to a body that might be able assist her if this problem happened again and she felt this was potentially dangerous, such as the council’s environmental health team.
The landlord’s handling of the washing line relocation was not appropriate. It would have been reasonable for the landlord to have treated this as a minor repair but it took almost three calendar months to do this work, rather than the two–month timescale (paragraph 5). This delay was a service failure.
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. In considering this the Ombudsman takes into account whether the landlord’s offer of redress was in line with the Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles: Be Fair, Put Things Right and Learn from Outcomes as well as our own guidance on remedies.
The Ombudsman notes the resident’s statement that her health had been made worse by the landlord’s actions; however, we cannot order compensation for any poor health that a resident claims they have experienced because he is not qualified to establish a causal link between the health effects that the resident says are linked to the landlord’s failures. Such matters would be for a court or public injury claim to determine.
It is evident that these slight delays in relocating the washing line and repairing the light would have caused some minor inconvenience to the resident. In this case an apology is proportionate remedy to recognise this impact on the resident.

The landlord’s response to reports of repairs to the property

The concerns raised by the resident concerned leaks from the bathroom as well as the condition of the porch.
The landlord dealt appropriately with the first leak in the bathroom in October 2019 which was dealt with as an emergency repair and made safe the same day; it was then resolved fully later that month in line with the repair timescales.
The landlord’s initial handling of the second leak (which the evidence suggests was caused by a different problem) was also dealt with appropriately as an emergency repair and was made safe the same day.
However, the landlord’s handling of the outstanding work following that repair was not appropriate. The landlord unsuccessfully tried to gain access to the property twice to carry out this work. It was not reasonable for the landlord to stop trying to gain access at that point; while the Ombudsman has seen evidence of these unsuccessful appointments from the repairs log, we have not seen any evidence that the resident was made aware of them or of contact with the resident about the outstanding work. The landlord eventually did this work some five months later, in February 2021, following a complaint from the resident. The landlord should have been proactive in contacting the resident to finish the follow-up work.
The landlord’s handling of the report of a crack in the porch was not appropriate. This matter was first raised by the resident in November 2018. While the repairs log evidences an investigation into a pooling of water on the porch roof at that time, there is no evidence that the crack was investigated. This Service was not provided with any reports of inspections of the porch and, by the time of the stage two complaint response, the landlord said that it was monitoring it in advance of a full repair. The evidence therefore shows that there was a delay by the landlord of approximately two-and-a-half years before it took action to look into the crack in the porch.
The resident told this Service that she is unaware of any monitoring taking place. However, given that almost one year has passed, the landlord should now be in a position to ascertain the state of the porch and when carrying out a repair would be appropriate. An order has been made, below.
The delays in looking into this matter as well as the delay in follow-on work following the second leak have evidently caused frustration and inconvenience to the resident and meant that she had to make a complaint before this matter was resolved. Financial compensation of £150 is appropriate here to reflect that inconvenience. This compensation is limited because the Ombudsman has not seen evidence of the resident chasing these matters to try to resolve them until complaints were made in early 2021.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of ASB

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s report of ASB in March 2021 was not appropriate. This Service has seen only one attempt by the landlord to contact the resident following her report of ASB in March 2021. The landlord should have taken reasonable steps in line with its policy to ensure it made contact with the resident at that time; one attempted call was not reasonable action. Its next substantial contact about the ASB was in May 2021.
The landlord’s handling of an earlier report in February 2019 was not handled appropriately; there is no evidence it undertook basic checks to ascertain if the behaviour was ASB in line with its procedure.
The landlord’s failure to carry out basic checks on reports of ASB has evidently caused inconvenience to the resident. It also meant that she had to make a formal complaint in order for the landlord to take action. Taking early, robust action on receipt of a report of ASB in line with its procedures and demonstrates to residents that their concerns are taken seriously. Accordingly, some financial compensation is appropriate here for the impact on the resident which has clearly impacted her relationship with the landlord. The sum of £200 is proportionate redress which takes into account that two reports were made over a period of two years.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s request for an allocated parking space

The landlord’s response to the resident’s queries about an allocated parking space was appropriate. The tenancy agreement signed by the resident makes no reference to allocated parking spaces (paragraph 4).
The resident asserts that the landlord misled her when she took the property on in 2009 when it told her she had an allocated spot. The Housing Ombudsman Scheme limits the Ombudsman’s consideration of a case to issues that have been raised with both the landlord and the Ombudsman within a reasonable timeframe; it is very unlikely that evidence would be available to enable us to investigate this matter after 13 years.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was service failure by the landlord in respect of its response to the resident’s:
1. Reports of repairs to the communal parts of the block.
2. Reports of repairs to the property.
3. Reports of ASB.
In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was no maladministration by the landlord in respect of its response to the resident’s request for an allocated parking space.

Reasons

There were slight delays by the landlord in repairing the rear light and relocating the communal washing line. It also missed opportunities to give further information to the resident regarding assistance with concerns about a neighbouring property and an update about the communal garden.
There were delays by the landlord in fully resolving the second leak at the property and investigating a crack in the porch.
The landlord did not follow its ASB procedures in assessing two reports from the resident to ascertain if there had been ASB.
The landlord’s response to the resident about an allocated parking bay was reasonable; there is no reference to such a parking space in the tenancy agreement.

Orders

The landlord shall take the following action within four weeks of the date of this report and provide the Ombudsman with evidence of compliance with these orders:
1. Apologise to the resident for the inconvenience caused by the failures identified in this report.
2. Pay the resident the sum of £350 made up of:
  1. £150 for the impact caused by the delay in trying to resolve the internal repairs.
  2. £200 for the impact caused by the landlord’s failure to take appropriate action in response to reports of ASB.
3. Feedback the outcome of the inspection of the communal gardens to the resident along with details of what upkeep of them she and other residents in the block can expect going forward.
4. Write to the resident with an update on the monitoring of the porch. This should include the next steps that it will take and a timescale for any subsequent repair.