Wandsworth Council (202127810)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202127810

Wandsworth Council

31 July 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 concerns:
1. the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of multiple repairs to the property.
2. the landlord’s response to the resident’s request for a rent rebate for the period the repairs relate to.

Background and summary of events

Background

The resident has been a tenant of the landlord for over 50 years. He occupies the upper level flat of a two storey property. The resident is elderly and has a number of health conditions.
As the resident’s tenancy started around 1970, the landlord has advised that it no longer has a copy of his tenancy agreement. However, the landlord has provided a copy of their standard tenancy conditions which provides that, “We are responsible for repairs to the structure and exterior of your home and we have to keep the installations in the property for gas, electricity and water supplies, heating and hot water, in good repair and working order. We are also responsible for drains, basins, sinks, baths and toilets.” This mirrors a landlord’s statutory responsibilities in relation to repairs.
The landlord had a two stage complaints process in force at the time of the complaint. An acknowledgement of the complaint will be sent within two working days at both stage one and stage two. A response for stage one complaints will be issued by a service manager within 20 working days and a response to stage two complaints will be issued by a senior manager within 15 working days. If a response cannot be provided within these timescales the resident will be informed and told why. The landlord states that it follows the remedies guidelines issued by the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman and Housing Ombudsman in deciding the appropriate amount of financial remedy.
In addition, the landlord is expected to meet the home standard set by the Regulator of Social Housing. The home standard includes ensuring that homes meet the Decent Homes Standard components of which relate to the degree of thermal comfort in a resident’s home as well as the standard of repair.
The Housing Health and Safety Rating System (HHSRS) is concerned with avoiding or minimizing potential hazards. The landlord has a responsibility to keep a property free from category one hazards, including excess cold. Excess cold can be caused by several factors including the absence of central heating or a poor, inefficient heating system. One of the preventative measures listed is an appropriate, properly installed heating system. The existence of a category 1 hazard is in itself a breach of a social landlord’s legal and regulatory obligations. A local authority cannot take statutory enforcement action against itself for its own housing, however it is expected to use the HHSRS to assess its housing and to ensure that this meets the required standards.
The resident’s son made the complaint on the resident’s behalf and will be referred to as ‘the representative’ throughout this report.

Scope of the investigation

This Service notes that some of the repairs are historical and which the resident had raised with the landlord over a number of years. Details of earlier reports have been helpful in providing a clear picture of the history of this complaint to date and the landlord’s interventions. For the purpose of this investigation, however, these previous reports and the landlord’s responses are referenced for contextual purposes only. This is because the Ombudsman is limited to investigating only those issues that have progressed through a landlord’s complaints procedure and then brought to the attention of the Ombudsman within a reasonable timescale. Therefore this investigation will focus on events from February 2021 onwards.

Summary of events

The representative contacted the resident’s local councillor in February 2021 to report that his father’s property was in a poor state of repair. The flat had no central heating or double glazing, the loft was not insulated and there was damp and mould in the bathroom. The representative said that windows had wooden frames that were rotten. There were doors onto a balcony to the front of the property but that they were insecure and needed replacing. He did not believe that any works in the property had been undertaken for many years. The resident had not raised a complaint with the landlord so the representative sought to raise this on his behalf. He was informed in response that the property had since been inspected and a number of repair works had been raised.
The representative contacted the councillor again in June 2021 to report that there had been little progress with works to the flat since his first contact four months ago. He expressed concerns that if the works were not undertaken soon, his elderly father would be left living in a cold and damp property over the winter months. He asked if the second bedroom in the property could be used to extend the kitchen, which was very small.
On 1 July 2021 the landlord responded to the councillor’s enquiry and advised that the works had not started on the roof because of difficulties in erecting scaffolding. The downstairs flat, a leasehold property, had an extension with a glass roof that was not strong enough to support standard scaffolding. A number of the landlord’s contractors had attended to see how scaffolding could be erected around the extension to enable access to the roof but yet been unable to identify a solution.
On 8 November 2021, the landlord responded to a third councillor’s enquiry, following contact from the representative providing an update regarding the works and confirmed that there were no plans to extend the resident’s kitchen into the bedroom.
On 6 December 2021, the representative raised a first complaint with the landlord. He stated that:

a. Since February 2021 problems with the property had been raised with the landlord. These issues included no central heating, no double glazing, no loft insulation, damp and mould in the bathroom, rotten window frames and balcony door. Since February 2021 the landlord had only installed the central heating.

b. There had been lots of inspections of the property but with little progress. This had become frustrating and he was worried about the resident’s health given the damp and poor insulation in the property and the resident’s age and vulnerabilities.

c. The works needed to be completed as soon as possible and ongoing rent should not be charged given the condition of the property.

The landlord acknowledged the representative’s complaint on 7 December 2021 and advised that a response would be sent to him by 5 January 2022.
The landlord issued its stage one complaint response on 31 December 2021 in which it:

a. Apologised for the distress caused to resident due to the outstanding repair work.

b. Recorded that repairs were first brought to the attention of the landlord on 15 February 2021. The property was then inspected on 19 February 2021 and repair orders were raised to the area repairs contractor.

c. Noted that while the resident had initially said that he did not want central heating installed, after some discussion the resident did agree to have a heating replacement survey. Central heating was installed in August 2021.

d. Stated that when the contractors attended to undertake works to the interior of the property in June 2021 the resident said that he did not want the works carried out until roofing work had been completed.

e. Advised that roof repairs and repairs to the guttering and the pointing of the chimney had been on hold until a complex scaffold was erected over the glass extension to the flat below. This had taken some time to source, with several contractors approached before a specialist roofing contractor was able to assist. Other options had been considered such as a ladder and harnessing of the roof but both were rejected as unfeasible.

f. Confirmed that once they had a price for the scaffold and roofing works, the landlord was then statutorily obliged to consult with the downstairs leaseholder on the cost of the works, which delayed the works further.

g. Noted that, at this time it became apparent that the rear bedroom window would need to be replaced. Further consultation needed then to take place with the leaseholder regarding the cost of the works.

h. Confirmed that, following an inspection it was determined that the balcony doors did not need to be replaced. The property was scheduled for external decoration in October 2022 and it was likely that the door would be replaced then.

i. Advised that the roof repair work had been completed. The refurbishment of the kitchen and bathroom would take place in the New Year. The resident had been offered a decant while the works took place but he did not wish to take this offer up.

j. Stated that a new handrail to the stairs and front entrance door were fitted in early December 2021. A new combi-boiler would be installed while the scaffolding was up.

k. Noted that the landlord had been calling the resident each week since the start of December to check in with him regarding the progress of the works and this would continue.

l. Acknowledged that, even though some of the delays were unavoidable, the resident had been caused distress and it confirmed that lessons would be learned going forward regarding minimising delays and improving communication with residents. £150 in compensation was offered.

m. Confirmed that a date would be agreed with the resident to complete the works to the kitchen and bathroom. Contractors would be asked to ensure that disruption was to a minimum and to complete the works as quickly as possible.

The representative asked to escalate his complaint to stage two on 4 January 2022. He said that the roof repairs had not been effective as there had been water ingress each time there had been heavy rain. He disagreed that the balcony doors did not need replacing. He said that the balcony door was insecure and poorly fitted, causing draughts and posing a security risk. The window frames and glass were all due to be replaced with double glazing in October 2021 but that this had not happened. The landlord had told him it would not be decorating the property and no reimbursement for rent would be offered.
The landlord acknowledged the complaint the same day and informed the representative that someone would be in contact to discuss the complaint further. On 7 January 2022 the landlord contacted the representative to inform him that it would need to respond to the specific points raised in the email of 4 January 2022, before it could review his complaint at stage two. The resident should receive a response to the additional points raised within 20 working days.
The representative then asked that the stage one addendum response include the following issues in addition to those already raised:

a. the resident’s second bedroom window had not been repaired and the room was unusable because of the cold;

b. the toilet was leaking;

c. the bathroom had not been repaired;

d. the main bedroom window was a double-glazed unit that was installed several years ago by the landlord. The windows did not open or meet fire regulations;

e. there were no smoke detectors or fire alarms in the property.

On 2 February 2022 the landlord wrote to the representative to provide an update on the matters that had been raised:
1. It stated that the work on the WC had been delayed as alterations were needed to the scaffold to enable the works to take place, however the works had since been completed. The WC would be redecorated before refurbishing the bathroom and kitchen. These rooms would then be redecorated.
2. Two replacement bedroom windows were on order and would be ready in six weeks.
3. A new smoke alarm had been installed.
4. Further works to the roof were taking place that week.
5. Given the concerns raised about the balcony door, the building maintenance inspector would undertake a new investigation to determine whether the door needed to be replaced or repaired. Usually replacement of windows and balcony doors would take place as part of a major works external decoration project, which was scheduled for October 2022. Regrettably this had been delayed as a result of the Covid-19 pandemic.
The representative wrote again on 3 February 2022 to ask that his complaint be escalated to stage two. He had not received a response in relation to his query about a rent rebate and he also requested a full works schedule. On 8 February 2022 the landlord responded that the complaint had been escalated and he should receive a response by 23 February 2022.
On 10 February 2022 it was agreed by the landlord that, in addition to the repairs already raised, the windows in the bathroom, kitchen and toilet would be replaced. They would be renewing the master bedroom and second bedroom windows. Replastering works were required in the bathroom and the roof would need to be repointed in some places.
On 22 February 2022 the landlord sent its stage two complaint to the representative. In its response, the landlord stated that:

a. Works have been undertaken to the roof since the scaffold had been erected on 14 December 2021, but the works had not resolved the water ingress issue. The scaffold would remain in place until the roof leak has been rectified.

b. The resident had been reluctant to report issues with his property for many years so when the landlord was first alerted to the disrepair in February 2021, there was a significant amount of work to be undertaken.

c. Central heating had been installed, a new front door and handrail fitted, a smoke alarm supplied and the toilet had been replaced.

d. The old extractor fan would be removed on Monday 21 February 2022 with further works to the bathroom to follow.

e. Further works would be undertaken on 22 and 23 February 2022 to install the new bath with plastering completed on 24 February 2022.

f. During week commencing 28 February 2022, works would be undertaken to decorate the toilet and bathroom and new flooring will be installed to those rooms.

g. A date for the kitchen installation would then be agreed. Once this had been undertaken, decoration works to the hallway, staircase and kitchen would ensue.

h. The works had been undertaken in this way to ensure that the disruption to the resident was minimised. A temporary decant had been offered to the resident previously but refused.

i. The resident had been informed that renewal of windows would take place in October 2021 as part of a major works contract but that this had been delayed due to the pandemic and now it seemed unlikely that this would happen in October 2022.

j. The windows in the bedroom would take approximately six to eight weeks to fabricate. Quotes were being obtained for the other three windows at the rear of the property. While the resident would like the windows and balcony door at the front of the property to be renewed, these were unlikely to be replaced in advance of the major works. Repairs would be undertaken in the meantime.

k. The landlord would redecorate the toilet, bathroom and kitchen once refurbished.

l. The landlord would not usually offer a rent rebate on a property that had remained habitable. Compensation could be awarded but this was ordinarily offset against the cost of any additional works that it was undertaking, and not obliged to carry out, such as decorating.

m. The complaint was upheld for the delays and poor communication which had occurred in the handling of the matter and an amount of £500 was offered in compensation.

n. As part of lessons learned, the landlord stated that staff had been reminded of the importance of ensuring that repairs orders were followed up promptly and monitored to ensure that they were satisfactorily completed to avoid similar situations occurring in the future.

The representative referred the complaint to this service on 23 February 2022.

Post complaint

The representative contacted the landlord again on 26 April 2022 to complain that works had not progressed significantly since the complaint.
The landlord wrote to the representative on 27 April 2022 to inform him that the toilet and the bathroom had now been refurbished. Additional tiling in the bathroom would take place when the kitchen was refurbished on 9 May 2022. The building maintenance manager had attended the property the previous day and had advised that the only outstanding works were the kitchen and windows. Decorative works were complete except for in the kitchen. Two of the windows had been manufactured and were ready for installation on 11 May 2022. The remaining three windows were still being manufactured and, once ready, an installation date would be agreed with the resident.
On 20 May 2022 the resident was informed that the bathroom, kitchen, and toilet windows would be arriving the following week and arrangements would then be made to fit them. The bedroom window would be manufactured by the 17 June 2022.
The representative contacted the landlord on 1 July 2022 to report that the window in the main bedroom had not been replaced or glass fitted as a temporary measure in the second bedroom. The work surfaces in the kitchen were too narrow for appliances to fit onto and no flooring had been fitted yet. Tiling had not been done at the rear of the bathroom. Contractors had not used dust sheets and as a result the carpet was soiled and damaged following the works. There was large cracks and damage to the ceiling from the leak in the roof.
On 15 July 2022 the representative reported to the landlord that he was dissatisfied with the tiling to the bathroom and the extractor fan had not been fitted. On 29 July 2022 the representative contacted the landlord again to inform it that the bedroom window had still not been replaced and the flooring had not been fitted.
The landlord undertook a further inspection on 17 August 2022 which confirmed that the bedroom window had still not been installed and this would be chased up with the contractor. The flooring had not been installed in the kitchen and an extractor fan was required in the kitchen. The resident has said that he was happy with the bathroom but the shower screen still needed replacing. The landlord offered to decorate the bedroom but this was declined by the resident until some of his belongings were removed. The balcony door would be reinforced with additional ply panel and decorated.
On 7 September 2022 the main bedroom window was installed but the newly fitted window in the back bedroom was not adjusted and the extractor fans had not been fitted.
On 14 September 2022 the landlord confirmed that the extractor fans would be fitted. On 16 September 2022 the resident advised the landlord that the back windows still did not close and the crack in the living room ceiling had not been addressed.
On 27 October 2022 a new job was raised for the ceiling to be repaired in the living room A job was also raised to strengthen the balcony door.
In July 2023 the landlord informed this Service that works to the living room ceiling remained outstanding. The landlord had contacted the resident on 2 May 2023 to make arrangements for the works to be undertaken as the resident had not wanted the work done at an earlier time. At the date of writing this report, the landlord had hoped to arrange a date to commence the works at the end of July 2023.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of multiple repairs to the property

(i) Repairs to the roof

It is unclear when repairs to the roof were first raised with the landlord, however the evidence provided to this Service shows that this was raised in a referral to a local councillor in February 2021. From the landlord’s records an inspection regarding the water ingress was undertaken shortly after the referral was received and, as there was no easy access to the roof, it was decided that scaffolding would need to be erected to determine the cause of water ingress.
This Service accepts that there were some unavoidable delays in finding a solution to accessing the roof. Consideration was given to erecting scaffolding up through the leaseholder’s kitchen and when this did not prove actionable, there were further delays while different contractors were consulted about erecting scaffolding over the leaseholder’s glass-roofed extension before a specialist contractor was sourced. While the Ombudsman accepts that this was a complex matter for the landlord to resolve, 10 months is an unreasonable delay in sourcing a specialist roofing contractor to erect scaffolding. This meant that roof repairs extended into the winter period resulting in further water ingress damage during the wet weather. In turn this caused delays to associated repairs in the kitchen, bathroom and toilet.
Once the scaffolding was erected, the landlord had a statutory duty to follow the prescribed process of consultation with the leaseholder in relation to the proposed works. This was another unavoidable delay and it is accepted that the consultation could not proceed before access to the roof and windows was facilitated and the job costings could be assessed. However, from the landlord’s records, the leaseholder had agreed to waive the consultation period so that the repairs could commence straight away, therefore this process should not have delayed works significantly.
It was identified that works were required to the roof, gutters, fascia boards and pointing, and once the scaffolding was erected on 14 December 2021, works to the roof were undertaken within a reasonable time and completed on 29 December 2021. However, the repair was ineffective and it was reported to the landlord on 5 January 2022 that there had been further water ingress following heavy rain. The landlord responded on 2 February 2022 that someone would go out that week to undertake further repairs. This took a month to arrange, which was unreasonable, and no evidence has been provided to this Service to indicate that any temporary measures were put in place in the interim to make the roof watertight. The landlord has confirmed that the roof repairs were completed on 23 March 2022. This was an unreasonable delay of 11 weeks from when the landlord was informed that the previous works had been ineffective and over 12 months in total since the repair was first raised.

(ii) central heating installation

It is not disputed that the resident was reluctant to have central heating installed however following discussions with the landlord March 2021, he agreed to a heating survey which took place in August 2021. A heating survey allows a heating engineer to make recommendations on the best heating installation for a resident’s usage. It was reasonable for the landlord to commission a heating survey to determine how best the property could be heated to meet the resident’s needs.
There was a delay between March and August 2021 in the heating survey being completed. The landlord has said that their contractors did not have the resources to carry out the works in an acceptable timeframe so an alternative contractor was used instead. This was a delay that was outside of the landlord’s control, however, where there are delays the resident should be provided with regular updates so that they can be reassured that the landlord is using its best endeavours to address the issue. It is unclear from the records provided that the landlord did this. Once the heating survey had been completed, the central heating was installed in August 2021. The representative later complained that the works were undertaken to a poor standard and that there had to be further callouts to resolve these issues. The landlord had not addressed this in its complaint response, although in correspondence with the local councillor in November 2021 it advised that the initial problems raised had been resolved.

(iii) bathroom, toilet and kitchen repairs

Although the landlord offered to undertake repairs to the bathroom, toilet and kitchen while it was waiting for the scaffolding to be erected, the resident said that he did not want these works to start until the main repairs to the roof had been completed. This was a reasonable request as it would be counter-productive for repairs to be undertaken to the rooms affected by water ingress until the source of the leak had been identified and repaired. Further, the works would have been very disruptive, particularly for an elderly resident with health needs.
While it is not evident that the fixtures in the bathroom and toilet were in disrepair at the date that works to the property were reported, it was noted that they were both in need of modernisation and it was requested that they be updated in March 2021. There were, however, works required to the walls and ceilings in both rooms as damage had caused by water ingress. A leak to the toilet was reported on 1 December 2021 and it was agreed that the toilet would be replaced. However, there was a problem with the contractor accessing the property in late December 2021 and the resident then said that he wanted the works postponed until the new year to avoid disruption over Christmas.
There were further unavoidable delays to these works in January 2022 as the landlord was alerted to health and safety risks concerning access to replace waste pipes and as a consequence alterations to the existing scaffold were necessary to facilitate safe access. These works were completed during the first week of February 2022.
The representative later complained that the original cistern on the wall in the toilet had not been removed by the 10 February 2022. In its stage two response the landlord advised that further works to the bathroom would commence on 21 February 2022 with works completed by the end of February 2022. However, while works began in the bathroom at this time, the tiling work was not completed until June 2022 and as of 15 July 2022 the extractor fans and flooring in the bathroom had not been fitted. The landlord has not provided an explanation for delays to works between March and July 2022. In the absence of this information, this Service will infer that these delays were unreasonable. Further, where delays are anticipated a resident should be informed of the delay in advance with reasons for the delay in order to manage the resident’s expectations. It is not appropriate for a landlord to provide unrealistic timescales for completion of works as, when these deadlines are not met, this will inevitably result in the resident losing confidence in the service.
It was appropriate that the resident was offered a temporary decant while the works ensued. The resident did refuse this, but stipulated that he wanted the works completed one room at a time to minimise the disruption to his home life. It was therefore reasonable for the landlord to undertake works to the kitchen after works to the toilet and bathroom had been finished, although this would have resulted in works taking longer than initially anticipated.
The kitchen works were due to start on 9 May 2022. It is unclear whether the works went ahead on this date but it is apparent that by 9 September 2022 there were still works outstanding in the kitchen including the kitchen floor and extractor fan. While it is accepted that the delays to works were initially at the resident’s request, once the works were due to commence, in May 2022, the resident would have had a reasonable expectation that the works would be completed in weeks rather than months. As above, in the absence of an explanation from the landlord as to these delays, this Service will infer that the delays were unreasonable.
The representative had asked that the resident’s kitchen be moved to the second bedroom as the kitchen was very small. It was reasonable for the landlord to reject this request as in doing so it would have reduced the number of two bedroom properties in its housing stock. While the representative may not have considered that the kitchen was an adequate size, the landlord was entitled to rely on the surveys and inspections undertaken by its staff and contractors who did not identify that there was any legal requirement to extend the kitchen.

(iv) replacement of windows in the bedrooms, WC, bathroom and kitchen

The representative reported that the master bedroom window had been replaced some years before but that it did not open. He said that he had been told by the landlord in July 2021 that it needed to be replaced. It was evident that the landlord had conceded that there had been an error in design of this window and in the landlord’s stage one response, it confirmed that quotes were being obtained for this window to be replaced and that there would be consultation with the leaseholder in relation to these works. This had not been undertaken in February 2022 and in April 2022, it was evident that consultation was still ongoing as the landlord was still in the process of obtaining quotes as part of the process. There was then a delay in the windows being manufactured and the window was installed in August 2022, which was more than 12 months after the works were raised.
It was reported that the glass had fallen out of the rear bedroom window because the wooden frame was rotten. A works order was raised to board up the second bedroom window and make it safe in November 2021 and a purchase order raised to replace the window with a white upvc window in a similar size. The landlord has since confirmed that the windows were installed in August 2022.
There were some unavoidable delays in relation to the installation of the second bedroom window, for example, the consultation procedure with the leaseholder and the timescales for the windows to be manufactured which was between 6-8 weeks. However there were other delays in fitting the bedroom windows initially because the contractor made a mistake with the order for the windows which then had to be reordered and it was then discovered that the windows had been sent to a different address. Overall there was a significant delay of over 10 months in renewing the windows. This was unreasonable, particularly as the landlord had conceded that a design issue with the main bedroom window had been identified some time before this complaint was raised.
While this may have been a contractor or supplier issue, the landlord missed an opportunity to monitor its contractor and supplier or liaise effectively with it, which may have helped to avoid further problems or, at least helped to manage the resident’s expectations. Instead, this delay caused further avoidable distress and inconvenience to the resident as well as time and effort in following this up.
In February 2021, the landlord informed the representative that it was obtaining quotes for the three windows to the rear of the property, which would then be manufactured and delivered. The consultation with the leaseholder occurred in mid-April 2022 and the landlord’s records show that the windows were ordered at this time and would have taken 6-8 weeks to manufacture, therefore they were installed within a reasonable time.
The resident was initially informed that the balcony door and glass window would be replaced and other windows to the front of the property renewed as part of planned works to commence October 2021. The resident was later informed in the landlord’s stage two complaint response that planned works had been delayed in response to the pandemic and there was currently no planned works scheduled in relation to the windows. Planned works are often major works that are scheduled to take place at defined intervals to maintain, repair, or replace external, or common parts of the building and structures, including windows. Social landlords have limited resources and are expected to manage these resources responsibly, to the benefit of all its residents. It can be cost effective for landlords to replace items such as doors, windows, kitchens, and bathrooms as part of a planned programme of works rather than on an ad-hoc basis. It was therefore reasonable for the landlord to consider this approach.
The Ombudsman expects landlords to consider interim works where there will be a delay until a planned programme of works is scheduled. The landlord therefore acted appropriately by arranging for the window to be inspected and works raised to strengthen and overhaul the door and to fit a draught excluder pending the planned works to replace them. It is unfortunate that the resident’s expectations were raised that these works would commence in October 2021, however it appears from the landlord’s records that once it became aware that these works would be delayed, this information was then shared with the resident.
The inspection concluded that the balcony door could be repaired and that they would be renewed as part of planned works. Therefore this Service concludes that there is no evidence of service failure regarding the balcony door being replaced.

(v) Living room ceiling

From the landlord’s records, these repairs were raised in February 2022. There were further references to this repair in May, July and August 2022. The representative made enquiries in September 2022 as to when the works would commence and works were raised again in October 2022 but did not go ahead. In May 2023 this Service was informed by the landlord that the resident had expressed that he did not want the works done at the time as he wished to clear the room himself with the assistance of his son. As of July 2023, the works to the ceiling had not yet been undertaken. The landlord has advised that they have not been able to arrange a suitable date with the resident to undertake the works and that the resident has a large number of personal effects in the living room which would require covering in order for the works to take place. While this Service acknowledges that there may have been an issue with access for some of the period of the repair, 15 months is an unreasonable delay for these works, which the representative had chased up with the landlord in September 2022.

Summary

The records provided do not provide any insight into why the resident’s property had been missed from the planned works programme over the years. It is not clear whether the resident declined to allow works to be undertaken or whether this was an oversight on the landlord’s part. What is evident is that when this was brought to the attention of the councillor in February 2021, it was noted that it was in disrepair and extensive works would be needed to bring the property in line with the decent homes standard and free from hazards. A number of the actions that the landlord took were positive:
1. It liaised with the resident to encourage him to have central heating installed in his property which he was initially reluctant to agree to.
2. If offered the resident a temporary decant and when this was declined, it agreed to minimise the disruption to the resident’s home life by working on one room at a time when it may have been more cost effective to arrange for all the works to be undertaken at once.
3. It agreed to contact the resident on a weekly basis to provide him with updates and to flag up any issues he wished to raise with the contractors. This would have provided reassurance to the resident that his concerns were being heard and that matters were in hand.
4. It agreed to redecorate the resident’s kitchen, bathroom, WC, hallway and it offered to redecorate the resident’s living room. Under the landlord’s standard tenancy terms, a resident is responsible for undertaking redecoration works in a property. Therefore, while it was not the landlord’s responsibility to redecorate the resident’s property it was positive that it offered to do so.
5. The landlord’s complaint responses were thorough and addressed the points raised by the representative. Redress was offered in the form of an apology, compensation of £500 and an offer to redecorate the resident’s property.
There were, however, also service failures. The significant delays in completing repairs had evidently caused distress, inconvenience and frustration to the resident. While some delay to the roof repairs were attributable to difficulties around erecting scaffolding, consultation and the complexity of the repair, overall a delay of over a year in undertaking effective repairs to the roof was unsatisfactory. Further the delays to the roof repairs unnecessarily delayed some of the other repairs, for example to the bathroom, kitchen, and living room. As a result an elderly, vulnerable resident was left living in poor conditions for an extended period.
It is acknowledged that works to the WC, bathroom and kitchen did not proceed straight-away in at the resident’s request, however, there were delays to the bathroom repairs of five months beyond the timescales outlined in the landlord’s complaint response and this had an effect on works to the kitchen. In the absence of an explanation for these delays, this Service concludes that this delay was unreasonable.
Delays to the renewal of the windows were significant. While some delays were anticipated, others were avoidable and as a result the resident was left without use of one of his bedrooms for over 10 months which inevitably extended into the winter period where the impact would be most acute.
While it was positive that the landlord had arranged to update the resident by telephone call each week, there were a number of communication failures that were evident from the timeline. There were appointments arranged with the resident which the landlord’s staff or contractors did not attend. Unrealistic timescales were given in the landlord’s stage two response for completion of works to the bathroom, kitchen and toilet which would have raised the resident’s expectations unnecessarily. While the Ombudsman does not doubt that these timescales were given to the resident by the landlord in good faith and that the failure to meet these timescales appears to be a result of poor communication between the landlord and its contractors, nevertheless this would have been a source of frustration to the resident. Overall, it is reasonable to conclude that the landlord’s communication was lacking and this prompted an unnecessary level of engagement from the resident and his representative in following up works.
The resident also experienced significant disruption while the works were ongoing. The duration of the works were extended unnecessarily due to errors with orders and abandoned inspections. There were also associated issues including damage to carpets and accumulation of dust because contractors had failed to take due care to protect carpets using dust sheets. This put the resident to further time and trouble in having to clean up when the contractors had finished for the day.
While it is recognised that the landlord did acknowledge its service failures and identify service improvements, offered redress of £500 and an agreement to redecorate the impacted areas in the resident’s home, in the Ombudsman’s view this did not go far enough.
After careful consideration of the evidence, this Service considers that the threshold for a finding of maladministration has been met for which further redress is warranted. An order has been made below for compensation of £700, in addition to the £500 already offered, in recognition of the impact on the resident. This sum takes into account the distress and inconvenience caused to him as a result of the length of time that these repairs issues had been ongoing. It also considers the resident’s vulnerability; his age and poor health. The Ombudsman considers these increased vulnerabilities as aggravating factors when considering redress which justifies an increased award to reflect the specific impact on him. It is also within the range of amounts that the Ombudsman can order when there is evidence of maladministration.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s request for a rent rebate for the period the repairs relate to

64. This Service is not able to order the landlord to refund the resident rent for the period the disrepair relates to. However, consideration can be given to whether the landlord followed its policies in procedures and whether it reasonably considered the resident’s request.

65. The landlord does not have a separate compensation policy and states that it follows the remedies guidance of the LGSCO and this Service in calculating financial redress. The landlord considered the resident’s request in its stage two complaint response. It stated that it would not consider a rent rebate in a property that remained habitable, however it did consider compensation and other redress, including an offer to redecorate the resident’s home. In the Ombudsman’s opinion, the landlord’s response was reasonable. It considered the resident’s request and provided an explanation as to why it was refused. It was appropriate for the landlord to offer compensation and to take other action to put things right by agreeing to redecorate the property. The Ombudsman therefore finds no service failure in relation to this aspect of the complaint.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s reports of multiple repairs to the property.

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration by the landlord in its response to the resident’s request for a rent rebate for the period the repairs relate to.

Reasons

While some of the delays to works were unavoidable and the works to be undertaken to the property extensive, overall and taking all of this into account, the time taken to complete the works was beyond what could reasonably be expected. This causing significant detriment to an elderly, vulnerable resident who experienced disruption for the duration of the works and who was without the use of one of his rooms for 10 months. There were also failures in communication, both with the resident in missed appointments and missed deadlines and the landlord and contractor with errors in orders and supplies being misplaced.
The landlord did give due consideration to the representative’s request that the resident be refunded rent for the period the repairs relate to. Its decision was reasonable and although the request declined, the landlord did consider other forms of redress such as redecorating the property and offering compensation.

Orders and recommendations

Within four weeks of the date of this determination, the landlord is to:
1. apologise to the resident for the failures identified in this report. The resident is to be given the choice as to whether this is verbal or in writing.
2. pay the resident £1200 in compensation which comprises of:
  1. £500 in recognition of the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident by the landlord’s delay in dealing with the repairs;
  2. £200 in recognition of the time and trouble that the resident had been put to due to the landlord’s failures in communication;
  3. £500 previously offered to the resident by the landlord (if not already paid to him).
3. provide evidence to this Service once payment has been made.
Within six weeks of this determination the landlord is to make arrangements with the resident to carry out repairs to the resident’s living room ceiling and provide evidence to the resident and this Service once this is completed.
The landlord is to provide evidence to this Service and to the resident within eight weeks of this determination that the other works to the property have now been completed.

Recommendation

That the landlord utilises a procedure, where there are planned works, to record whether any properties with residents with vulnerabilities have been omitted from the schedule, documenting the reasons why and diarising this for review with the resident periodically.