WATMOS Community Homes (202121649)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202121649

WATMOS Community Homes

24 May 2024

Our approach

The Housing Ombudsman’s approach to investigating and determining complaints is to decide what is fair in all the circumstances of the case. This is set out in the Housing Act 1996 and the Housing Ombudsman Scheme (the Scheme). The Ombudsman considers the evidence and looks to see if there has been any ‘maladministration’, for example whether the landlord has failed to keep to the law, followed proper procedure, followed good practice or behaved in a reasonable and competent manner.

Both the resident and the landlord have submitted information to the Ombudsman, and this has been carefully considered. Their accounts of what has happened are summarised below. This report is not an exhaustive description of all the events that have occurred in relation to this case, but an outline of the key issues as a background to the investigation’s findings.

The complaint

The complaint is about the landlord’s:
1. Handling of the resident’s reports of a leak in the bathroom and follow‑on works
2. Handling of the resident’s concerns about the window replacement and window repairs.
3. Response to the resident’s reports of repair to the bath overflow and mixer taps.
4. Response to the resident’s requests for minutes of a phone conversation from 13 December 2022.
5. Response to the resident’s reports of asbestos in the property.
6. Handling of the associated complaint.

Background

The resident has a secure tenancy with the landlord that started in 2006. The property is a one-bedroom flat in a block. The landlord’s records show it is aware that the resident has a brain aneurysm and is vulnerable.
On 20 December 2022 the landlord received a complaint from the resident about repairs and cancelled appointments. In early January 2023 the landlord told the resident it would need more time to investigate the issues he had raised.
On 18 January 2023 the landlord issued its stage one complaint response. In relation to the complaint brought to the Ombudsman, the main points were:
1. Leak around the wash basin: this was reported on 10 December 2022 and passed on to the out of hours contractor. The contractor arrived within the emergency response time and undertook the necessary works to stop the leak but in doing so had to remove some glazed tiles from the wall and remove the pedestal to access the waste.
2. There were follow-on works on 14 December 2022. It noted works were completed, as far as possible, but the contractor had advised they would need to come back in the new year to tile above the wash basin. The landlord noted that this was a routine repair, so this work would be within its repair timescales.
3. The landlord explained that the resident had not allowed the contractor to patch the area above the basin with a close match or to replace all the tiles to the area above the basin. The landlord explained it had been unable to find an exact match for the tiles that had been removed and that it would carry out work to replace the missing tiles or re-tile the area if the resident would allow the contractor access.
4. Replacement of the windows: on 6 October 2022 it had agreed with the resident to meet at the property on 20 October 2022 with the window contractor to undertake a final measure before the windows were manufactured. However, the resident cancelled that appointment and it had asked him to rearrange the visit as soon as possible. It said, as of 13 December 2022, the resident had not committed to making a new appointment.
5. Communication: the Ombudsman had advised the landlord on 21 December 2021 that the resident wanted contact by email and, where possible, to communicate in writing with him. The landlord said sometimes that was not possible particularly when he called the office and requested call backs. It explained when it did contact him by phone (at his request) it had provided him with a transcript of the conversation and where it had met with him in person, it had followed up with minutes of the meeting.
6. Appointments: the landlord explained that it offered appointments at times to suit the resident’s availability with the only exceptions being when the report being made by him was an emergency. On those occasions, there was an expectation that, having reported an emergency repair, he would be at home to allow access to undertake any repairs or, if not available, make arrangements for a key holder/neighbour or similar to be present.
7. Not providing minutes of a phone conversation on 13 December 2022: following the telephone conversation that evening, the notes were written up and emailed to the resident at 22:49pm.
8. Failed window repair reported on 28 December 2022: the landlord noted the job was raised and passed to its contractor who attended. They noted “attended site to window not secure. On arrival found the lock and handle have previously been removed and a temporary measure needed to secure the window. Fitted a timber down the side of the window to allow for a sliding bolt. Tenant happy as with security and it locks tight to stop the draft.” The landlord added that the windows needed replacing.
9. The landlord said that the issue of asbestos was not included as part of the complaint but included for clarity: it said it had provided the resident with the last 2 asbestos reports, which were still relevant. The report showed that, although the floor tiles might contain chrysotile, they were contained and managed and therefore “nothing to worry about”. It added that, during a joint inspection of the property, there were no visual signs to suggest any damaged tiling or disturbance of materials to any section of the property. It had arranged for an additional full asbestos survey to be carried out to put the resident’s mind at ease and this had been arranged for 4 January 2022, but the resident had only allowed the contractor access to the lounge floor. It said it could look at this matter again once he had provided access for an assessment of all the outstanding works and it would be in contact with him to arrange that.
The landlord explained how the resident could escalate the complaint by completing a review request form (a copy of which it enclosed). It noted that he must explain the reasons why he was requesting a review, and what he hoped it would do to resolve the complaint to his satisfaction.
On 19 January 2023 the resident asked the landlord to escalate his complaint. On 24 January 2023 the landlord refused this escalation request on several grounds including that he had not completed the review request form and that he had not explained how he wanted his complaint resolved.
We asked the landlord to look at the issues of asbestos and the window replacement as part of a formal complaint. It responded in a further stage one response dated 28 February 2023. The main points were:
1. It was sorry the resident felt it had not done enough to carry out the window replacements. It said it had been trying to resolve this issue for him since October 2021 and gave details of the action it had taken.
2. It explained that an appointment to undertake the window survey was paramount to replace the windows. It asked the resident to email it directly with his availability for a meeting week commencing 6 or 13 March 2023.
3. It had tried many times to address the asbestos issue. It said the resident had expressed dissatisfaction with the lack of action taken to remove the decomposing asbestos tiles in the lounge. The landlord said it was sorry he felt it had not done enough to address this issue. It explained that its surveyors had tried on many occasions to access the property to undertake an assessment of the tiles. It also provided him with a copy of an asbestos report dated 31 August 2012 which detailed the tiles in the lounge did not contain asbestos and therefore presented no risk to him. It noted the resident remained unhappy and, to put his mind at ease, it had arranged a further asbestos survey. However, when the contractor attended the property, the resident had refused them access. The landlord said it had decided to remove the tiles in the lounge. It added, should the resident decide to remove the carpet in the future, it would be happy to remove the lounge floor tiles, so the floor could receive any carpet or other floor covering of his choice which would be at his cost.
The landlord explained how the resident could escalate the complaint.
When the resident approached the Ombudsman, he confirmed the windows had been fitted but said the tiles had not. He said he was seeking financial compensation for the distress caused to him.

Assessment and findings

Scope of the investigation

This report covers the events leading up to the formal complaint in December 2022. We are aware that the resident has or had other complaints with the landlord; however, this report considers the issues referred to in the final complaint response of 18 January 2023. We have also considered the resident’s complaint about asbestos, which the landlord considered in its stage one complaint response of 28 February 2023. While we have no evidence that this issue progressed to stage two, we have used our discretion to consider this matter as it is clear the resident has been pursuing it since at least 2021 and we previously decided not to investigate it in our case reference 202001923.

Handling of the resident’s reports of a leak in the bathroom and follow-on works

The landlord is responsible for repairing and maintaining any installations it has provided for heating, water heating and sanitation and for supplying water, gas and electricity. It is also responsible for the structure and exterior of the property.
The landlord’s repairs policy explains the different categories of repairs:
1. Immediate repairs affect the immediate safety or security of the property or potentially affect the health and safety of the resident. Examples include gas leaks, uncontrollable water leaks, structural damage, and serious electrical faults). The landlord will attend within 3 hours.
2. Emergency repairs affect the safety or security of the property or potentially affect the health of the resident. Examples include a blocked toilet, loss of power or loss of heat in winter months. The landlord will attend within 24 hours.
3. Urgent repairs are not classed as an emergency but could result in the loss of a basic facility, or where further damage will be caused if the problem is not dealt with urgently. Examples might include a minor leak to the roof, or partial loss of heating in winter months. The landlord will attend within 5 working days.
4. Routine repairs are those that are not causing major inconvenience to the resident and might include such repairs as repairs to walls, brickwork and slate/tiles. The landlord will complete all routine repairs within 28 working days.
When the resident reported a leak on 10 December 2022, the landlord acted appropriately by treating it as an emergency repair and attending the same day to remedy it. The resident has not disputed that, but his concerns appear to be about the follow-on works and the length of time he was left without a pedestal and fully tiled area in the bathroom above the wash basin. In its complaint response of 18 January 2023, the landlord explained it had been unable to find an exact match for the tiles that had been removed and that it would carry out work to replace the missing tiles or re-tile the area, if the resident would allow the contractor access. That was a reasonable approach to take.
On 2 June 2023 the evidence suggests that the pedestal was refitted. However, the contractor told the landlord a few days later that the resident had refused to have the tiles installed as they were not a close enough match. The repairs policy says that these repairs should have taken place within 28 working days. The evidence is not clear on why there was a delay of over 4 months to refit the pedestal; however, we accept that some time would have been needed to try to find a close match for the replacement tiles.
In relation to the failures identified, the Ombudsman’s role is to provide fair and proportionate remedies where maladministration or service failure has been identified. In considering this the Ombudsman takes into account our Dispute Resolution Principles: Be Fair, Put Things Right and Learn from Outcomes as well as our own guidance on remedies.
The Ombudsman recognises that some of our residents’ circumstances mean that they are more affected by landlords’ actions or inactions than others. This might be due to their particular circumstances, or as a result of a vulnerability. Consideration of any aggravating factors (such as a resident’s health condition) may justify an increased award to reflect the specific impact on the resident.
While there is no evidence that the bathroom was not useable after the leak was repaired in December 2022, it is evident that the delay in completing the follow-on works would have caused some frustration and inconvenience to the resident. Financial compensation of £100 is appropriate to reflect that impact. The sums awarded in this report are in line with the Ombudsman’s Remedies Guidance (published on our website) which sets out our approach to compensation. This includes cases where there have been delays in resolving repair issues. The sums ordered also reflect the fact that the resident’s vulnerabilities are an aggravating factor.
The landlord’s compensation policy explains that if there is unavoidable damage to fittings or fixtures when carrying out repairs, it will consider the circumstances of the case and may provide compensation, which could involve repair or replacement by its contractors or suppliers.
The transcript of a conversation between the landlord and the resident on 23 June 2023 shows that the landlord had given its contractor an order to replace all of the tiles to the bathroom. It noted “we will just replace the lot”. The landlord confirmed to the Ombudsman that this work would be done as part of planned works. There is nothing in the repairs policy to say that replacement tiles should be matched exactly. However, the Ombudsman welcomes this decision as a gesture of goodwill to bring a resolution to this issue. An order has been made for the landlord to write to the resident with an expected date for when this work will be completed (if it remains outstanding).

Handling of the resident’s concerns about the window replacement and window repairs

In an earlier report by the Ombudsman in October 2021 we ordered the landlord to re-offer the resident an independent inspection of the windows, providing a list of contractors for the resident to choose from.
The evidence shows that the landlord provided a lost of contractors to choose from on 22 October and 5 November 2021 in line with the order in our previous report. We have seen that the landlord chased the resident on several occasions between October and December 2021 and, at our suggestion, picked a window contractor itself in early 2022. (However, this contractor decided they did not want the contract.)
The landlord subsequently engaged a new contractor and asked the resident for convenient dates to attend the property. A visit took place on 5 August 2022 where initial measurements were taken. We understand that quotes were obtained after that visit and a further appointment was arranged for 20 October 2022 to take final measurements. That was reasonable action by the landlord and, while the process was not quick, we recognise the landlord took a resident-focused approach in giving him time to give it dates that were convenient for him.
However, the October 2022 appointment was cancelled by the resident and the landlord asked him for alternative dates. More robust action could have been taken by the landlord to follow up on that crucial appointment to take final measurements. The landlord chased this up in December 2022 and in its complaint response of 28 February 2023 explained this appointment was paramount in order to replace the windows. It asked the resident to email it directly with his availability for the week commencing 6 or 13 March 2023. The landlord could have taken action much sooner.
We acknowledge the resident did not engage with the process at all times and cancelled at least one appointment, however, the overall time taken by the landlord was not reasonable. We understand that the windows were eventually replaced in July 2023. The landlord should have taken more robust action to secure appointments with the resident after October 2022 (including consideration of whether legal action was appropriate) in order to progress these works. Its failure to do so caused the resident evident frustration.
Financial compensation of £150 is appropriate for the impact of that delay. This sum takes into account the fact that the resident failed to minimise the impact as some of his actions (such as not choosing a contractor and the cancellation of an appointment)
In its complaint response of 18 January 2023, the landlord noted a successful window repair on 28 December 2022. However, we have seen evidence that the resident contacted the landlord’s complaints team by email later that day saying the window had been blown open. This email was not picked up until 3 January 2023 when it was referred to its repair service in case the resident had not reported it direct. We have not seen evidence of what action was subsequently taken. The landlord acted appropriately by referring this report to its repairs team after becoming aware of it; it would have been open to the resident to have reported it to the out of hours service.

Response to the resident’s reports of repair to the bath overflow and mixer taps

The evidence suggests that the resident reported to the landlord on 26 December 2022 that the bath overflow was not working, and water was remaining in the bath. The landlord logged this as a repair on 3 January 2023 and attended the property on 10 January 2023 when the matter was resolved. This was appropriate action as this would have been classed as a routine repair.
The issue of the mixer taps was not considered by the landlord as part of a formal complaint. However, we note the resident’s request that the mixer taps be replaced. We can see that the contractor changed the mixer taps on the bath in November 2021 and the landlord confirmed to us that they were found to be working. Should the resident have concerns about the bath mixer tap or any other mixer tap in the property he should report this to the landlord as a repair in the usual way.

Response to the resident’s requests for minutes of a phone conversation from 13 December 2022

We have seen a transcript of a call between the resident and the landlord on the evening of 13 December 2022. We have seen evidence that this transcript was emailed to the resident as an attachment to the email at 22:49pm that evening.
We can see that the landlord wrote to the resident on 23 January 2023 in relation to emails that had been sent to him but not received in which it referred him to his email provider. That was a reasonable step to assist him when he said he had not received emails from it.

Response to the resident’s reports of asbestos in the property

The landlord’s voids policy says that where asbestos containing materials (ACM) are present but in good condition such as floor tiles and boxing they are to be left in situ, any damaged ACM is to be removed in accordance with asbestos regulation controls.
Asbestos surveys from 2012 and 2014 identified chrysotile (white asbestos) in the flooring. It noted the material was seen to be in fair condition at the time of the inspection, was low or very low risk and recommended that the condition of the material should be monitored.
In December 2021 the landlord refused to carry out another asbestos survey saying that it was contained, and the resident was not at risk. This was reasonable as it was in line with the most recent asbestos survey. However, in June 2022 following the reports that the tiles were damaged, it agreed to inspect them and asked for convenient dates from the resident. It chased the resident for a suitable date the next month. This was a reasonable step to take given the resident’s concerns. A survey did not go ahead as the evidence suggests no dates were provided by the resident. Given that it was the resident who was pursuing this issue and no repair had been identified, it was reasonable for the landlord not to chase this matter up with the resident.
In its stage one complaint response of 28 February 2023 the landlord said the asbestos survey of August 2012 “had identified the tiles in your lounge do not contain asbestos”. This was incorrect because previous surveys had clearly identified chrysotile in the floor tiles. This error caused evident frustration and distress to the resident.
Financial compensation of £200 is appropriate for the impact of that communication error which would have caused distress by downplaying the resident’s legitimate concerns about the flooring.
In August 2023 the landlord told us that the resident remained convinced that there were harmful levels of asbestos in the property so, to give him peace of mind, it had agreed to pull up the tiled flooring and self-level. We welcome that decision by the landlord. While there is no evidence that it was obliged to do so, this undertaking demonstrated the landlord’s willingness to achieve a resolution in this instance. An order has been made for the landlord to write to the resident with an expected date for when this work will be completed (if it remains outstanding). The landlord should also write to the resident to confirm what would replace these floor tiles and who will be responsible for the cost of that replacement.

The associated complaint

The landlord has a two–stage complaints procedure. At stage one it aims to respond within 10 working days and within 20 working days at stage 2. The procedure says, if a complaint is escalated to stage two, the landlord will require the complainant to complete a review request form setting out the reasons why they are unhappy with the stage one response and the outcome that they are seeking.
The landlord refused the resident’s escalation request as he had not provided the review request form or explained how he wanted the complaint resolved.
The Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code published in March 2022 was clear that, if all or part of the complaint is not resolved to the resident’s satisfaction at stage one “it must be progressed to stage two of the landlord’s procedure, unless an exclusion ground now applies”. Such exclusions were referred to within that Code and included things such as the issue giving rise to the complaint occurred over six months ago; legal proceedings had started; and/or matters complained about had previously been considered under the complaints policy.
In this case, we have concerns about the landlord’s refusal of the resident’s escalation request on the basis of not completing the form or providing details of the outcome he required. It would have been appropriate for the landlord to have contacted the resident to given him a further opportunity to explain his reasons for the review request. This would have been reasonable given his vulnerabilities and his ongoing multiple complaints at that time.
The landlord’s decision not to progress the complaint caused evident frustration to the resident. It also meant it lost an opportunity to resolve matters at the earliest opportunity and therefore improve the landlord/resident relationship. Financial compensation of £100 is appropriate for the impact of this complaint handling failure.
On 8 February 2024, the Ombudsman issued a new statutory Complaint Handling Code. This Code sets out the standards landlords must meet when handling complaints in both policy and practice. The statutory Code applies from 1 April 2024. The Ombudsman has a duty to monitor compliance with the Code. We will assess landlords using our compliance framework and take action where there is evidence that the standards set out in the Code are not being met.
In this investigation, as we found failures in the landlord’s complaint handling policy, we have referred this to our team responsible for monitoring compliance with the Code.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration by the landlord in respect of its:
1. Handling of the resident’s reports of a leak in the bathroom and follow-on works.
2. Handling of the resident’s concerns about the window replacement and window repairs.
3. Response to the resident’s reports of asbestos in the property.
4. The associated complaint.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was no maladministration by the landlord in respect of its:
1. Response to the resident’s reports of repair to the bath overflow and mixer taps.
2. Response to the resident’s requests for minutes of a phone conversation from 13 December 2022.

Orders

The landlord shall take the following action within 4 weeks of the date of this report and provide evidence of compliance with these orders to the Ombudsman:
1. A senior manager to provide a written apology to the resident for the failings outlined in this report. In doing so, the landlord should have regard to the apologies guidance on our website.
2. Pay the resident compensation of £550 made up of:
  1. £100 for the impact of the delay in carrying out follow-on works in the bathroom.
  2. £150 for the impact of the delay in replacing the windows.
  3. £200 for the impact of the communication relating to asbestos.
  4. £100 for the impact of the complaint handling failures.
3. An order has been made for the landlord to write to the resident with an expected date for:
  1. When the re-tiling of the bathroom will be completed. This work should be completed within 4 months of the date of this report (if it is outstanding).
  2. When the removal of the floor tiles in the living room will be completed. This work should be completed within 4 months of the date of this report (if it is outstanding).
4. Write to the resident to confirm what would replace these floor tiles and who will be responsible for the cost of that replacement.