Applications are open to join the next Housing Ombudsman Resident Panel – find out more Housing Ombudsman Resident Panel.

London Borough of Enfield (201914492)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 201914492

Enfield Council

22 June 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 is about the landlord’s:

a)     Response to the resident’s reports about water pressure at the property;

b)     Complaints handling.

Background and summary of events

Background

  1. The resident is a secure tenant of the landlord at the property, a two–bedroom, ground floor maisonette, with a tenancy start date of 19 May 1986.
  2. The Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 confirms the landlord’s implied obligation to maintain and repair the structure and exterior of the property. This includes the water and heating installations at the property.
  3. Caselaw has established that a landlord’s repair responsibilities commence from the point that an issue is reported and that a landlord is then required to resolve that issue within a reasonable timeframe. The landlord’s repair policy provides for the following repair timescales:

a)     Emergency – 4 hours;

b)     Urgent – 48 hours;

c)     Routine – 90 calendar days.

  1. The landlord’s corporate complaints policy (July 2019 version) gives a 10 working day deadline for responding to an initial complaint, then 35 working days to respond to a final stage complaint.

Summary of events

  1. The landlord responded to the resident’s complaint on 8 March 2019. The resident’s original complaint was not available, however, it is reasonable to conclude from subsequent correspondence that it related to historical water pressure issues at the property, including an ongoing issue which meant that the resident remained unable to use the washing facilities at the property and a number of missed surveyor appointments.
  2. The landlord’s complaint response confirmed that its contractor had attended the property that same week, but had not been able to resolve the water pressure issue. It said that the same contractor would attend once more, this time to run a full diagnostic check, with the resulting job order to be closed down only once the water pressure issue was fully resolved.
  3. The resident responded on the same date (8 March 2019) to say that she had spoken to the plumbing contractor that day and they had no record of any instruction to complete a full diagnostic check on the water system at the property. The landlord responded to the resident on 12 March to confirm that the contractor had ‘agreed to undertake work that they believe will improve the issues you have of poor water pressure’. It also clarified that this would involve replacing the water cylinder and placing it at a higher position to the old cylinder. To this end, the contractor would contact the resident to make arrangements with her to complete the works.
  4. The resident emailed the landlord on 17 February 2020. She said that the complaint she had raised in March 2019 about water pressure remained unresolved, with hot and cold water issues persisting since 2014. She said that the landlord had identified works in March 2019, but had then cancelled these works without informing her. She requested that her complaint be escalated.
  5. On 27 February 2020, the resident informed the Ombudsman that the landlord had arranged works for the following day, but that she wanted to progress her complaint in any case. She then contacted the Ombudsman the following day to say that a landlord operative had attended but works had not completed. She said that she remained dissatisfied as she had to visit a friend’s property in order to wash. The Ombudsman contacted the landlord, requesting that it clarify its position with respect to the complaint, including a response to the resident by 23 March.
  6. The resident provided a further update to the Ombudsman on 25 June 2020. She said that the landlord has scheduled an appointment for 24 March, but that this had been cancelled due to the impact of Covid-19 on the landlord’s service delivery. She had then been informed, on 23 June, that a landlord operative would attend on 25 June to fit the required new water tank. However, when the operative turned up, they had confirmed to the resident that the appointment was to take measurements, rather than to complete works. As a result, the resident confirmed that she did not allow access. The landlord confirmed, on the same date, that the resident’s complaint would be escalated.
  7. The resident confirmed that a further appointment took place on 21 July 2020, but that nothing significant had been done.
  8. The landlord sent its final response on 3 August 2020. It referred to its stage one response from March 2019 and confirmed that remedial works identified at that point remained incomplete. It apologised for this, acknowledging that its contractor’s service delivery had been ‘appalling’, which would be taken up directly with their senior management team.
  9. The landlord also confirmed that a separate contractor (the ‘new contractor’) had been instructed to resolve the water pressure issue; it understood they had attended the property twice and a works order had been issued to replace and raise the water cylinder. In light of the ‘significant delay and the upheaval you had to experience due to our contractor’s repetitive failures’, the landlord awarded £200 in compensation.
  10. The new contractor attended the property and completed works on 13 August 2020. The landlord provided photographic evidence of these works to the Ombudsman and included the contractors notes from the works – ‘Attended site, shut down supply to tank, drained it down and removed tank. Renewed tank and fittings and made up new main storage tank. Renewed pipe work and full-bore gate valves. Filled up, removed air locks and tested upon completion’.
  11. During a call with the Ombudsman dated 8 March 2021, the resident said that the water pressure remained poor, despite works having been carried out. She said that the landlord had not inspected the works following their completion and that the ongoing issue had affected her mental health as she remained reliant on going to a friend’s property in order to shower.
  12. The resident confirmed, during a further call with the Ombudsman on 11 June 2021, that she remained unable to use the washing facilities at the property and continued to visit a friend’s property for this purpose. She said that she was unsure what works took place following her complaint, but that she had not made further contact with the landlord as she had left it in the Ombudsman’s hands. The Ombudsman’s role was explained to her and she was encouraged to report the ongoing issue directly to the landlord.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

  1. The landlord acknowledged that the resident has been reporting water pressure issues for a considerable length of time, dating back to Decent Homes improvement works that the resident said were carried out by the landlord in 2014. The Ombudsman’s remit does not extend to investigation of historical issues as a resident is expected to raise issues with both the landlord and Ombudsman in a timely manner. As such, this investigation is focussed solely on the events that progressed through the landlord’s complaints procedure that commenced in, or shortly before March 2019, and culminated with the landlord’s final response of 3 August 2020.
  2. The Ombudsman is also not able to investigate issues that post-date the completion of the landlord’s complaints process, other than to ensure that the landlord has followed through on any agreements it might have made during the course of this process. The resident reported to the Ombudsman that the water pressure issues at the property persist, despite works having been completed. This investigation will not consider the ongoing issue as there is no evidence of the resident having reported this to the landlord. It is encouraging to note, however, that recent correspondence from the landlord details its attempts to contact the resident in this respect. If she has not done so already, the resident is encouraged to make direct contact with the landlord’s repairs team so that her ongoing issues can be addressed.

Water pressure

  1. The date that the resident first reported the water pressure issue is not known. However, it is evident from the stage one complaint response (March 2019) that the landlord had acknowledged its repair/maintenance repair responsibilities, arranged for its contractor to visit the property and that this resulted in a job being raised to carry out remedial works, i.e. replacing the existing water cylinder and raising its position.
  2. Whilst this course of action presented as reasonable, it is evident that a service failure then occurred in that the identified works did not take place. The resident got back into contact with the landlord nearly a year later (February 2020), following which the landlord investigated and identified that the fault was with the original contractor. Having identified the failure, the landlord appointed a new contractor, who attended the property before carrying out the works originally identified.
  3. The new contractor completed the works on 13 August 2020, this was 17 months after the point that the works were originally identified. Whilst there was a considerable delay between the stage one complaint response and the resident’s further contact about the same issue, it remains that this represents an excessive delay in carrying out the identified works. The landlord’s repairs policy gives a timescale of 90 days for completing routine repairs, which would have amounted to a reasonable timeframe in the circumstances. This means that the period of excessive delay amounted to more than 14 months.
  4. Whilst it was appropriate for the landlord to acknowledge the failure and detail the steps it would take with the contractor, it remained the case that it was the party that held the ultimate repair responsibility here. In effect, it was wholly responsible for the contractor’s failure to act, a failure which it acknowledged to be ‘appalling’.
  5. The landlord’s efforts to put this matter right amounted to providing a sincere apology, putting in a plan of action that led to the works taking place and offering compensation of £200. Whilst the apology and action to complete works were reasonable in the circumstances, the offer of compensation is not considered either reasonable or proportionate to the detriment experienced by the resident.
  6. The resident has reported that she has not been using the washing facilities at the property for a lengthy period (dating back to the improvement works in 2014) and that she has been required to visit a friend in order to bathe. The complaint she raised in or around March 2019 provided the landlord with the opportunity to put this right, however, it did not carry out the identified remedial works until 17 months later. As such, an amount of compensation in accordance with the Ombudsman’s guidance on cases involving a significant long-term impact on the resident is considered appropriate.

Complaints handling

  1. The landlord’s stage one response was sent in March 2019 and the resident did not get back in contact until February 2020. As the resident had not requested escalation in a timely manner, it would have been reasonable for LL to consider the original complaint closed and to open a new complaint. That it did not and chose to re-open the original complaint amounts to a reasonable exercise of discretion as it was clear that a service failure had been identified that required resolution.
  2. Having accepted the complaint, it is of concern that the resident was required to wait a further five and a half months before receiving a final response. This amounts to an excessive delay considering the landlord’s 35 working day timescale and the fact that she had already been required to wait a considerable amount of time to get the substantive issue addressed. This meant that the landlord missed an opportunity to put the issue right; it is also unsatisfactory that the resident was required to approach this Service before the case was progressed. In the circumstances, a further amount of compensation is considered reasonable to reflect this additional service failure.

Determination (decision)

  1. In accordance with the paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme (the Scheme), there was maladministration with respect to the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports about water pressure at the property.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Scheme, there was service failure with respect to the landlord’s complaints handling.

Reasons

  1. The landlord identified remedial works to resolve the water pressure issues following the resident’s complaint in March 2019, however, these works did not take place. The resident got back in contact with the landlord in February 2020, with the works eventually taking place in August 2020, this represents an excessive delay in the circumstances and the landlord’s offer of compensation did not reflect the detriment experienced by the resident during this time.
  2. The landlord acted reasonably in re-opening the complaint upon the resident’s further contact in February 2020, however, having done so, there was then a delay of five and a half months before the final response was sent to her, an excessive delay in the circumstances.

Orders and recommendations

Order

  1. The landlord to pay the resident compensation amounting to £1200, broken down as follows:

a)     £1100 for the 14 month excessive delay in completing the remedial works at the property.

b)     £100 for the service failure identified with the landlord’s complaints handling.

  1. Any amounts of compensation already paid to be deducted from the above payment.
  2. The landlord to confirm compliance with the above order by 20 July 2021.

Recommendation

  1. The resident to ensure that she contacts the landlord directly so that her ongoing concerns about water pressure can be addressed.