Waltham Forest Council (201915368)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 201915368

Waltham Forest Council

11 February 2021

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 concerns:
   1. the landlord’s response to the resident’s dissatisfaction with the refurbishment of his kitchen and bathroom.
   2. the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of a leak coming from his washing machine.

Background and summary of events

2. The resident is a tenant of the landlord.
3. The landlord sent the resident a letter on 18 November 2019 to confirm that work was to be carried out to replace his bathroom and kitchen on 27 November. The letter explained:

“Please move your kitchen appliances prior to the work commencing. Fridges and freezers are required to be placed in an alternative area (not in the kitchen) throughout the duration of the kitchen works. In circumstances where it is not possible for you to move your appliances, our operatives can move the goods under your supervision.  All appliances are solely your responsibility and you will be asked to sign a disclaimer.

Move furniture, valuables, delicate ornaments and personal belongings away from the work area to prevent any risk of damage.”

4. The work was then completed on 12 December.
5. From the resident’s correspondence, he has stated that a leak from his washing machine first happened on 30 December 2019, and he had reported this to his landlord the same day on the phone. The resident claimed that the washing machine had leaked because it had not been re-fitted correctly by the landlord’s contractors.
6. The evidence shows that the resident made a formal complaint on 1 December 2019 to which the landlord replied on 20 December 2019. However, the resident’s initial stage one complaint has not been provided for this investigation. In the landlord’s response it addressed the resident’s concerns about dust in the property following the work. It said a member of its team had visited the property on 2 December 2019 and found it “to be clean”.  The landlord gave the resident contact details if any further issues arose.
7. On 30 December 2019 the resident sent an email to the landlord raising his concerns about the conduct of a member of the landlord’s staff. He stated that this individual was “rude”, did not have “customer service skills” and had disconnected the phone every time the resident tried to call back. He also stated that he could not use his washing machine due to the leak.
8. On 2 January 2020 the resident sent an email to his landlord explaining that as a result of the work carried out in his property there was “a ridiculous amount of dust circulating” and that his flooring had “been damaged in the process”. He also stated that his washing machine had not been “hooked back up properly” and his possessions that had been taken down for the work to be carried out were “not put back like promised” resulting in him having him to pay other workmen to put his curtains back up.
9. The resident also complained that he had informed a member of the landlord’s staff about “all the issues” he was having but these issues were never resolved. He said he had been told that they would organise for an area manager to inspect the property, to check that all the work had been done properly, but this was not done. He asked for a “sincere apology” from the landlord and for his flooring to be fixed. The resident also said he wanted reimbursement “for all the money [I’ve] had to spend on getting all stuff put back into place” and for the money he had had to spend at the launderette, as the washing machine had not been fitted correctly.
10. On 3 January 2020 the resident reiterated to the landlord that his washing machine had not been re-fitted properly and requested that this issue be addressed. He stated that there was water leaking into his cupboards and flooring even though somebody had been to his property earlier that day to try and resolve it.
11. On 16 January 2020 and 6 February 2020, the resident forwarded his concerns to the head of customer services and the chief executive as he felt that his issues were still “unresolved”. These issues referred to: the amount of dust that was “circulating his flat” after the refurbishment work, his damaged flooring, the member of staff who had not resolved his issues, and his washing machine that had not been fitted correctly so was therefore leaking.
12. On 17 February 2020 in an email to the resident, the landlord confirmed the repair work was to be undertaken on his damaged floor following a visit to the property on 14 February 2020. In this email the landlord also apologised that the resident had had to use the launderette to wash his clothes and advised him that his complaint was still being investigated.
13. On 5 March 2020 the landlord issued its stage two complaint response. It is not entirely clear which complaint the landlord was addressing, as it initially explained the response was to a complaint from 3 February 2020, but then attached an email from 16 January 2020 as evidence of this stage two complaint. Nonetheless, in this response the landlord addressed several of the issues that the resident had raised in his previous correspondence:
    1. It said it had told the resident in its correspondence leading up to the work being carried out that the contractors would not be responsible for removing and/or putting his possessions back. It provided a copy of a letter dated 18 November 2019 as evidence.
    2. It acknowledged that the resident “might have been inconvenienced” by the dust from the refurbishment work but insisted that dust was “unavoidable”.
    3. The member of the landlord’s staff “took several phone calls” from the resident and attended the property on two occasions when work was being carried out. It had referred the resident’s concerns to the relevant department to be looked into.
    4. The issue with the washing machine was brought to the landlord’s attention on 2 January 2020 and subsequently fixed on 3 January, so was resolved within a reasonable timeframe.
    5. The resident’s request for reimbursement of the launderette charges would not be accepted as the issue was “dealt with promptly” by the contractor.
14. The landlord concluded by explaining how the resident could approach this Service if he remained dissatisfied.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s response to the resident’s dissatisfaction with the refurbishment carried out at the resident’s property

15. It is apparent that the resident first raised his concerns with the standard of work being carried out in his home in December 2019 whilst the work was still underway and continued to express his dissatisfaction with the results up until February 2020. The landlord addressed the resident’s initial concerns in its stage one response and his subsequent concerns in March 2020.
16. The landlord’s stage two complaint response included a report which demonstrated that it had conducted a thorough investigation examining the relevant evidence in regard to: the level of dust, damaged flooring, a member of the landlord’s staff, and the request to be reimbursed for the costs incurred putting his possessions back into place.
17. The resident expressed his concerns with the amount of dust produced from the refurbishment and the landlord informed the resident that dust was unavoidable, and that it’s checks of the problem had showed the area to be clean. This was a reasonable response from the landlord as it is understandable that a refurbishment of a kitchen and bathroom might produce a quantity of dust.
18. The landlord addressed the resident’s concerns with the member of its staff. It reassured the resident about the actions taken by the staff member, which it had found to be appropriate.
19. Regarding the damaged floor, which was brought to the landlord’s attention in January 2020, in its stage two response it stated that, following a visit on 14 February, it was agreed that the flooring would be repaired. This action taken by the landlord was an appropriate response as it acknowledged need for repairs, took responsibility for the issue and took steps to put things right. No further action would have been expected by the landlord in order to resolve this issue.
20. In the resident’s correspondence with the landlord he stated that he had been promised that his possessions would be put back into place once the refurbishment work had been completed. However, the landlord clarified in its stage two response that no such promise had been made. The landlord re-sent the resident a letter dated 18 November 2019 which advised the resident that kitchen and bathroom appliances would need to be moved prior to work commencing. This letter also stated that “where it is not possible for you to remove, our operatives can assist you”.
21. This letter of 18 November 2020 made no reference to the contractors being obligated to place the resident’s possessions back after the work had been completed. Instead, this letter immediately set the resident’s expectations that it was the resident’s responsibility to remove any appliances and that the contractors could potentially help if needed.
22. Overall, the landlord’s actions and responses to the resident’s dissatisfaction with the refurbishment of rooms in his property were reasonable. It considered the points raised by the resident and clearly explained its stance on the issues. It provided evidence when available to support its decisions.,

Landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of a leak coming from the washing machine

23. The resident’s “conditions of offer” document from the start of his tenancy states:

“You should also note that the Council … do not decorate Council homes as this is the responsibility of the tenant.  Council properties are allocated as unfurnished accommodation and it is the tenant’s responsibility to provide their own carpets, furniture, and white goods (cookers, fridges, & washing machines etc.) if required by them.”

24. The landlord’s repairs policy states that “washing machines, drying machines, cookers, hobs, ovens, refrigerators, freezers and all other white goods where provided by the tenant or gifted by the Council” are the responsibility of the tenant to repair and maintain.
25. However, not withstanding the above, the landlord’s contractor specification document for the kitchen refurbishment states that:

“If there is already a washing machine and/or a dishwasher it is to be replumbed in, using hot and cold washing machine valves. The work shall include extending or adapting existing pipe work, installing stop taps to hot and cold-water supply, forming new wastes for washing machines including cutting existing 40mm waste pipe, installing trap and stand pipe, securely fixing, making connections and access holes in units. Allow for supplying and connecting waste pipe to nearest soil stack/gulley etc.”

26. The situation therefore stands that while the washing machine was ultimately the resident’s responsibility to repair and maintain, in this particular case, the landlord’s contractors were responsible for reinstalling the washing machine as part of the refurbishment. Because of that they and the landlord could reasonably be responsible for considering any problems that may have developed following the reinstallation.
27. A contractor attended the property on 3 January 2020 to assess and carry out repair work on the washing machine after the landlord had been notified of the leak on 30 December 2019 and again on 2 January 2020. The landlord responded appropriately once it was made aware of the leak and in a timely manner.
28. It was reasonable for the landlord to have relied on its contractor who had advised it that the washing machine had been repaired in January. However, the resident continued to report problems following the contractor’s attendance.
29. Following these further concerns raised by the resident, the landlord should have investigated to see what repair work, if any, was needed. Having done that, if it did not consider itself (or its contractors) responsible for further repairs to the washing machine it could have then informed the resident. The landlord had set the resident’s expectations by carrying out the initial repair and then failed to maintain them by not acknowledging his subsequent reports or providing him with clarity on its stance regarding the repair responsibility. The landlord did not take any action to identify whether the ongoing problems were its responsibility or not, and therefore its decision not to reimburse the resident for costs he incurred was not sound.

Determination (decision)

30. 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 dissatisfaction with the refurbishment carried out at the resident’s property.
31. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure by the landlord in its response to the resident’s reports of a leak from his washing machine.

Reasons

32. The landlord produced a detailed reply to the complaint which demonstrated that it had conducted a thorough investigation into the issues raised by the resident. Although the landlord did not uphold the resident’s complaint or resolve the complaint as he had wanted, the explanations given indicate that it had closely examined every concern that the resident had put forward.    
33. The landlord did not attempt to identify whether the resident’s washing machine problems following the refurbishment were something for it, or the resident to address.

Orders

34. In light of the service failure identified in this report, the landlord is ordered to pay the resident £150 for the inconvenience he experienced.
35. This payment should be made within four weeks of the date of this report. The landlord should update this Service when the payment has been made.