Tower Hamlets Homes (202205782)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202205782

Tower Hamlets Homes

8 December 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

The complaint is about:
1. The condition of the property when the resident moved in.
2. The information provided about the property.
3. The landlord’s handling of repairs to the property.
4. The landlord’s response to the resident’s request for costs incurred.

Background

The resident holds a secure tenancy with the landlord that commenced on 8 April 2021. The property is a 3-bedroom first-floor flat. The resident has physical and mental health conditions which the landlord is aware of. The resident has a representative – both will be referred to as “the resident” in this report.
On 4 June 2021 the resident reported to the landlord that her windows were not opening or closing properly. In response, the landlord raised a repair order and, having attended the property, found that the glass also needed replacing. A further repair order was raised on 18 November 2021 where it was reported that the living and study room window handles were broken. The landlord completed these repairs in March 2022.
On 11 August 2021 the landlord carried out an electrical test on the property and subsequently on 1 September 2021 the resident reported that the electrics to the hall and landing were not working properly. On 30 November 2021 the landlord fixed the issue.
On 28 October 2021 the resident reported to the landlord that the wet room drain was blocked, and water was backing up to the hallway, causing damage to her laminate flooring. The landlord unblocked the drain on 29 October 2021 and requested a follow-up inspection of the drainage system. On 19 November 2021 the landlord tried unsuccessfully to contact the resident via telephone to discuss this.
The resident raised a formal complaint with the landlord on 14 February 2022. In summary, she said that her property was in a state of disrepair and that it was not fit for human habitation when it was offered to her. She added that she had spent a significant amount of money and time to repair the property. Furthermore, she stated that there were still repairs outstanding such as a faulty light switch, broken windows, and drainage issues with the wet room. She also stated that she was incorrectly told that the property had its own private garden. As a resolution to her complaint, she wanted the landlord to carry out the outstanding repairs, reimburse her for the work she had carried out, compensate for the distress and inconvenience caused, and explain as to why the property was incorrectly advertised. In addition, she wanted an explanation as to why the property was let to her in a state of disrepair as well as requesting surveys relating to its void process.
On 28 February 2022 the landlord responded to the resident’s complaint at stage 1 of its complaints process. In summary, it said:
1. It raised a works order on 6 September 2021 that highlighted the electrics in both the hallway and landing were not operational. Its contractor attended on 30 November 2021 and found that an incorrect switch was installed and subsequently resolved the issue.
2. As the resident advised she was still having issues with the light, it had raised a new order, and it would re-attend to investigate the issue on 10 March 2022.
3. It attended to her window repairs on 21 June 2021 where it found that the glass also needed replacing. It was trying to source the necessary materials to carry out the work and had booked an appointment to attend her property for 2 March 2022.
4. It attended on 29 October 2021 to unblock the resident’s wet room. It raised a further inspection as there was still an issue with the drainage system. It instructed its contractor who installed the wet room to assess the issue.
5. The resident would need to contact the local authority lettings department in relation to her opinion that the property was incorrectly advertised.
6. The property was presented in line with its lettable standard.
7. That redecoration was the resident’s responsibility, and it would be unable to reimburse her for any costs relating to this.
8. It did not supply the surveys she had requested.
9. It apologised for the length of time it had taken to carry out the repairs and offered £30 compensation in recognition of the time and trouble in pursuing the matter as well as the distress and inconvenience caused.
In the resident’s escalation request, she said that the compensation offered did not reflect the costs incurred nor the distress and inconvenience caused. She also stated that the landlord had not explained as to why the repairs were not done at the start of the tenancy. Furthermore, she said that it had not provided any evidence to support its assertion that the property was at a lettable standard. The resident asked the landlord to provide a copy of its lettable standards criteria and its void inspection reports.
In summary, the landlord’s final response (of 28 March 2022) said:
1. It completed the repairs to the resident’s windows on 3 March 2022.
2. It fixed the lighting issue on 21 March 2022.
3. It did not produce the inspection report requested so was unable to provide this, but it would be able to provide notes from the attending officer.
4. When a property was void, works are carried out in accordance with its lettable standard, but it was appreciated that some repairs did not become known until a tenant was in situ.
5. The void specification did not cover additional works agreed on site during mid-term inspection and would include ‘basket rate codes’ that the resident may not understand.
6. It would review the compensation offered once the resident had provided a breakdown of costs to be reimbursed.
7. It apologised for any shortcomings in its service.
In April 2022 the resident told the landlord she would be willing to settle the matter for the sum of £3,000 in recognition of the distress and inconvenience caused by the landlord’s failure to carry out the repairs within a reasonable period and for the reimbursement of works she had carried out to the property. Later that month she provided the landlord with a breakdown of costs totalling £1,240 for the various repairs she asserted that she had carried out to the property. In response, the landlord refused her reimbursement request.
In the resident’s complaint to this Service, she said she was unhappy that the property was incorrectly advertised as having a private garden. Further, she was unhappy with the condition of the property when she moved in and stated that some repairs were still outstanding. Moreover, she added that the light switch, windows, and her wet room were still in need of repair. She was also unhappy with the landlord’s response to her request for a reimbursement. As a resolution, she wanted compensation for the stress and inconvenience caused and to be reimbursed for costs incurred in bringing the property up to a decent standard.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

The resident has recently informed this Service that the local authority should have provided her with ground-floor accommodation due to her ill health. While the Ombudsman does not underestimate the difficulties this would cause to the resident, it is outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction to consider local authorities’ rehousing decisions. The resident may wish to contact the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman (LGSCO) in relation to these concerns. In addition, paragraph 42 (a) of the Scheme states that the Ombudsman may not consider complaints that are made prior to having exhausted the landlord’s complaints procedure. In this case, the Service has not seen evidence of the resident formally complaining to the landlord about this issue.
Furthermore, In the resident’s complaint to this Service, she said that she was unhappy that the property was advertised as having a private garden. This investigation will focus on the landlord’s communication and the information provided in respect of this matter rather, than the actual advert that the local authority produced.

The condition of the property when the resident moved in.

When investigating a complaint, the Ombudsman applies its Dispute Resolution Principles. These are high level good practice guidance developed from the Ombudsman’s experience of resolving disputes, for use by everyone involved in the complaints process. There are three principles driving effective dispute resolution:
1. Be fair – treat people fairly and follow fair processes.
2. Put things right.
3. Learn from outcomes.
The Ombudsman must first consider whether a failing on the part of the landlord occurred and, if so, whether this led to any adverse effect or detriment to the resident. If it is found that a failing did lead to an adverse effect, the investigation will then consider whether the landlord has taken enough action to ‘put things right’ and ‘learn from outcomes’.
The landlord has a lettable standards policy. The policy states that there is a minimum standard that residents should expect when they move into a property. It states that when it hands the keys over to a resident, the property will be safe, clean, and in a good state of repair. It adds that if the property is not in the condition outlined in its standards, residents should contact it as soon as possible.
In the resident’s complaint she said that the property was in a state of disrepair when she moved in and that it was unfit for human habitation. While the Ombudsman notes the resident’s assertions, we are unable to conclude if this was the case. Furthermore, the landlord has provided this Service with a copy of its pre-void specification which showed that it raised several repairs during the void period, including an overhaul of the bedroom and lounge windows, as well as an electrical check of the property.
In addition, this Service has seen a copy of the landlord’s post-void inspection sheet as well as the electrical safety certificate that was completed during the void period, both of which were marked as satisfactory. The landlord has also provided a collection of photographs that suggest that the property met its lettable standard before the commencement of the resident’s tenancy.
Moreover, the Ombudsman would have expected the resident to have raised concerns over the condition of the property within a reasonable timescale. The landlord’s records showed that the resident first raised repairs with the windows in the property almost 2 months after the tenancy commenced on 4 June 2021. However, there was no evidence that the resident complained to the landlord about the property being uninhabitable or in a general state of disrepair until her formal complaint on 14 February 2022. This was over 10 months after the tenancy commenced.
Overall, there was no evidence that the property was ‘let’ to the resident in a state of disrepair or that it had failed to meet its lettable standard. Further, there was no evidence that the resident raised this issue with the landlord as soon as possible. In view of this, the Ombudsman has made a finding of no maladministration in respect of the condition of the property when the resident moved in.
However, this Service has identified shortcomings in the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns. Its final response stated that it would not provide its void specification as this would confuse matters due to the ‘basket rate codes’. This was an unsatisfactory response that demonstrated a lack of transparency in the void process. In addition, the landlord should have been able to provide the resident with a copy of its post-void inspection sheet and photographs. The landlord’s response to the Ombudsman’s request for evidence indicated that it was having difficulty obtaining these documents from its contractor. This may indicate that it failed to thoroughly investigate the resident’s concerns from the offset. In view of this, a recommendation is made below.

The information provided about the property.

In the resident’s complaint to this Service, she said that she was unhappy that the property was incorrectly advertised as having a private garden. The landlord responded to this issue at stage 1 of its complaints process where it stated that the resident would need to contact the local authority as they were responsible for advertising the property. This was an unhelpful response. While the landlord was not responsible for advertising the property, it worked on behalf of the local authority and, therefore, would have been ideally placed to investigate the matter and respond with its findings. Instead, it puts the onus back onto the resident. This would have caused frustration for her.
The landlord has since informed the Ombudsman that the local authority generates adverts for the property based on the ‘system’ and that this system had incorrectly indicated that the property had access to a garden. While the landlord stated that it does not have oversight of the adverts, its response suggested that it had access to this system. This further demonstrated that it could have done more to investigate the matter following the resident’s formal complaint. Although the landlord did not have oversight of adverts it should have taken more care to ensure that the information on the system was correct before the property was advertised. It is also unclear if the resident was informed of this mistake.
The Ombudsman acknowledges that the resident would have been aware that she did not have access to a private garden when she viewed the property. Moreover, had this been a significant issue for the resident she would have had the opportunity at that point, to decline the offer. In view of this, it is the Ombudsman’s opinion that the adverse effect caused by the landlord’s failings was minimal. Overall, this amounts to service failure from the landlord, and an order for compensation is made below, in line with this Service’s guidance for failures that have caused frustration to the resident.

Repairs to the property

Under the landlord’s repairs policy, it is responsible for various repairs to the property including electrical wiring, light fittings, windows and plumbing to baths and showers. Further, its policy states it has a target time limit of 20 working days to complete routine repairs.
On 4 June 2021 the resident reported that her windows were not working properly and would not open or close. The landlord’s stage 1 response stated that its contractor attended to investigate the matter on 21 June 2021 where it found that handles on the storeroom and lounge windows were broken. It also noted that the glass needed replacing. However, it was not until 18 November 2021 that the landlord raised a follow-up order to repair these issues. It is unclear why it took the landlord almost 5 months to do this. Further, the landlord’s records showed that the landlord eventually fixed the issue in March 2022. This was over 9 months after the resident’s initial report. While the Ombudsman acknowledges that it was taking steps to source the correct material for the work, this was a considerable delay that would have caused distress and inconvenience to the resident. In addition, the landlord failed to act in accordance with its repair timescales.
On 11 August 2021 the landlord carried out a full electrical test on the property. It is unclear from the landlord’s records what prompted this test, however, on 1 September 2021 the resident reported that she was still facing issues with the lights in the hall, stairs and landing. The landlord subsequently raised a recall appointment for 13 September 2021. Its repair records indicated that the contractor was unable to get hold of the resident on this date and that it took steps to contact her again on 23 and 27 September 2021, where it left a voicemail and sent a text. However, its records suggested that its contractor may have been using the wrong number.
The landlord provided the contractor with an up-to-date contact number on 27 September 2021. However, the contractor failed to raise another appointment with the resident until 25 November 2021. The repairs were finally completed on 30 November 2021, almost 3 months after the recall order. This was an avoidable delay and the landlord again failed to act in accordance with its repair timescales. This would have caused further distress and inconvenience to the resident.
On 28 October 2021 the resident reported that her wet room drain was blocked, and that water was constantly backing up into the hallway. The landlord attended the next day and fixed the immediate blockage, however, it found that there may be an issue with the drainage system and raised an inspection to investigate this matter further. On 19 November 2021, the landlord tried to contact the resident to conduct a ‘telephone consultation’ but was unable to get hold of her. There was no evidence that the landlord made any further attempts to contact the resident about the drainage issue until its stage 1 response of 28 February 2022. This was over 3 months after its initial attempt to contact her. The evidence showed that it was only once the resident raised a formal complaint that it took any proactive steps to resolve the matter. This was unacceptable and would have undermined trust in the landlord and tenant relationship.
Moreover, the landlord’s records suggested that this matter was not resolved until 15 March 2022 when it installed a bath in replacement of the wet room. This was over 4 months after the resident’s initial October 2021 report. Again, this was a considerable delay which was further exacerbated by the landlord’s failure to install the new bath correctly. In addition, the landlord failed to address these delays in its final response.
Overall, the landlord’s handling of repairs to her property was unsatisfactory. The landlord failed to keep to its policy timescales and the delays were considerable. Further, it failed to keep the resident updated on the progress of work. While the landlord apologised for the delays, it is the Ombudsman’s opinion that the £30 compensation offered does not adequately reflect the level of detriment caused to the resident by the failures identified in this report. There was also no evidence that the landlord gave any consideration to the resident’s health conditions and the adverse effect these delays may have caused.
Furthermore, the landlord failed to demonstrate any learning from the complaint. This amounts to maladministration from the landlord. In line with this Service’s remedies guidance, awards of between £100 to £600 compensation should be made where the Ombudsman has found failure which adversely affected the resident. In view of this, orders are made below for remedy.
It is noted that in the resident’s complaint to this Service, she stated that the repairs to her windows, lights, and the wet room drainage remain unresolved. Further, she added that other repairs were outstanding. An order and recommendation have been made below in respect of this.

The resident’s request for costs incurred.

The landlord’s compensation policy states that where appropriate it will make a recommendation for compensation where there have been costs incurred by a resident if it has neglected to do the work it should have done. The landlord’s repairs policy states that the residents are responsible for the internal decoration of the property.
In both the resident’s complaint to the landlord and this Service, she asked for reimbursement for the costs she said she had incurred to bring the property up to standard. The landlord’s final response requested that she provide a breakdown of these costs, which it would then consider. This was fair a response from the landlord which showed that it was taking the resident’s concerns seriously.
The resident provided this breakdown about a month later. This contained a list of various repairs and decorative works that the resident had carried out at her own cost. In response, the landlord disputed the resident’s assertions and explained that any decorative works were her responsibility and that these repair issues should have been brought to its attention at the time. It subsequently rejected her request on this basis. The landlord’s response was reasonable, and it acted fairly by explaining its position on each issue. Furthermore, a landlord must be given a reasonable opportunity to resolve any matters that it is responsible for. In this case, there was no evidence that the resident had previously raised the repair issues listed in her breakdown or informed the landlord of her intention to carry out the work mentioned.
While the Ombudsman recognises that the resident said she spent a considerable sum of money on her property, the landlord’s response to her request for a reimbursement for costs incurred was reasonable in the circumstances. Its response detailed its position clearly and it demonstrated that it had considered its compensation policy when responding to her request. Additionally, it was appropriate for it to highlight that it was not responsible for the internal decoration of the property as outlined in its repairs policy. In view of this, the Ombudsman has made a finding of no maladministration in respect of the resident’s requests for costs incurred.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration by the landlord in respect of the condition of the property when the resident moved in.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure by the landlord in respect of the information provided about the property.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in respect of its handling of repairs to the property.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration by the landlord in respect of the landlord’s response to the resident’s request for costs incurred.

Orders

The landlord must, within the next four weeks:
1. Provide a written apology to the resident for the failures identified in this report.
2. Pay the resident compensation of £550 comprised of:
  1. £500 for the distress and inconvenience caused by the landlord’s handling of repairs to the property.
  2. £50 for the frustration caused by the information provided about the property.
3. The landlord must review the failings identified in this report to determine what action has been or will be, taken to prevent a recurrence of these. The review should consider what it will do to ensure it adheres to its policy timescales for repairs and what it will do to ensure the information on a property is correct before it is advertised. The landlord must write to the Ombudsman and the resident with the outcome of this review.
4. The landlord must inspect the property and ensure that repairs to the windows, electrics, and drainage have been undertaken satisfactorily. If further repairs are needed, the landlord must undertake these in accordance with its repairs policy.
The landlord should provide this Service with evidence of compliance with these orders within the timescale set out above.

Recommendations

The landlord should review its void process to ensure its void inspection notes and photographs are easily accessible and can be shared with residents if necessary.
The landlord should contact the resident, identity any further repairs and, if required, remedy them within the timescales set out in its repairs policy.