London Borough of Ealing (202217674)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202217674

London Borough of Ealing

29 July 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 landlords handling of the resident’s reports of:
1. noise coming from the soil stack.
2. repairs required to his balcony windows and doors.
3. other defects within his property.
The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

The resident has been a leaseholder since 3 February 2021. The landlord is a local authority. The property is a third floor, 2 bedroom flat. The property was a new build. The resident has a diagnosis of autism which was known to the landlord.
On 24 June 2022, the resident raised with the landlord that there was a noise coming from the soil stack which banged loudly at all hours of the day. Although evidence shows that an operative attended on 29 June 2022 to inspect the issue, the Ombudsman has not seen evidence of the outcome of this visit.
On 17 July 2022, the resident made a formal complaint about the noise coming from the soil stack. He said an operative had investigated the issue, but no further action was taken despite his belief that it would. The resident, who was autistic, said he found the noise was “painful” to listen to. He said he would hire his own plumber if no action was taken by 22 July 2022.
On 13 September 2022 and 26 September 2022, after not receiving a response again, the resident raised further complaints. The key points were as follows:
1. There were outstanding defects in the property, including the noise coming from the soil stack in the bathroom, a noise when the washing machine drained, badly fitted balcony door and windows, issues with the towel rail, a tile spacer not removed, badly fitted hallway cupboards, and damage in the kitchen.
2. He had been told to report any defects to the repairs team which were then rejected as the staff were “not trained” to handle new build defects.
3. He felt that the landlord had not taken responsibility for the issues and there was no one to talk to about resolving them.
4. The resident said it had a financial impact on him as he had spent £1,000 investigating the noise issue already and spent money rectifying some of the other defects.
5. The resident said the issues had caused stress, insomnia, and headaches. He said it was “hard to overstate” how much the noise issue had affected him.
6. As a resolution, he asked for:
  1. Resolution of the soil stack issue and the balcony door and window frames.
  2. The defects warranty to be reinstated for a short period of time.
  3. Compensation.
  4. Legal action to be taken against the developer.
On 4 October 2022, after not receiving a response, the resident made a complaint to the arm’s length body of the landlord who had done the marketing for the new builds in which he raised the issues with the noise and the balcony.
On 7 October 2022, the landlord escalated the resident’s complaint to stage 2. It said that as his complaint spanned multiple departments within the landlord it had decided to escalate the complaint directly to stage 2 and would respond by 28 October 2022.
On 27 October 2022, a surveyor attended the resident’s property with the new build project lead and the repairs manager.
On 1 November 2022, the stage 2 response was given after the landlord requested an extension to provide a response. It upheld the complaint as it had not communicated promptly. It confirmed the surveyor’s report from the visit had highlighted the following issues:
1. Audible knocking noise, from stack or plastic pipework due to movement or expansion.
2. Balcony door had dropped, catching at the bottom, causing corner splitting.
3. Windows throughout the property are misaligned, with visible gaps where seals should be tighter.
4. Small scratch on kitchen floor and plinth under the larder unit.
5. Tile spacer left in the floor.
6. Hall cupboard doors not aligned.
It agreed the following actions:
1. Adjust the shower mixer bar to accommodate pipe movement during re-pressurisation. Revisit to check if that resolved the issue; if not, consider further action.
2. Refer windows and doors to the developer.
3. Remedy the scratch marks.
4. Remove the tile spacer and regrout.
5. Ease and adjust the hall cupboards.
On 16 February 2023, a joint visit was completed with the developer, following which the developer confirmed there was no evidence of latent defects.
The resident contacted the landlord again on 5 March 2023 and said he could no longer tolerate the noise. He advised the landlord if it had not resolved the issue within 28 days, he would take his own action, including arranging for his own plumber to attend.
On 30 March 2023, a plumber attended and installed an expansion joint and insulation on the soil stack. On 2 April 2023, the resident contacted the landlord and said that the noise was still present. When referring his complaint to this Service, the resident said that the landlord had not responded, and the issue remained unresolved.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

The Ombudsman notes that the resident suggested that the landlord’s failure to resolve the reported noise had negatively affected his health. The Ombudsman appreciates the reported noise has been longstanding. However, it is beyond the expertise of the Service to reasonably find a causal link between the landlord’s actions or inactions and the deterioration of the resident’s health. The Ombudsman has therefore made no comments in relation to this. The resident may wish to seek legal advice on this matter. However, consideration has been given to the general distress and inconvenience that may have been caused to the resident.

Policies and procedures

The lease agreement sets out that the landlord shall use reasonable endeavours to repair, renew, and improve the service media in the property and the load bearing framework and all other structural parts of the building.
The landlord’s repair policy states that it has no legal obligation to carry out repairs to the inside of the homes of leaseholders unless a fault to the structure of the building causes internal damage. Any repairs shown within the first 12 months of the handover of a new-build property will be dealt with in line with its defect procedure. Within 28 days, the landlord would complete routine repairs.

Soil stack noise

The resident first raised the issue of noise coming from the soil stack in his bathroom on 24 June 2022. The landlord appropriately raised a repair and sent an operative to inspect the issue on 29 June 2022. However, no evidence has been provided about the outcome of this visit. While it was appropriate of the landlord to send an operative, it needs to ensure that it has effective systems in place to record visits and note any actions required following such visits. Not doing so caused the resident to expend time and effort raising the issue again with the landlord and delayed a resolution.
The resident raised the issue again, via a formal complaint, and mentioned that an operative had previously attended but no action had been taken. There is no evidence that the landlord responded to this. Given that the landlord had already sent an operative round to inspect the issue, this was an opportunity for it to have checked its records or spoken to the operative to find the next steps for the repair. Not doing so highlights a lack of effective record keeping and caused the resident to spend further time chasing a response.
On 13 September 2022, 26 September 2022, and 4 October 2022, the resident raised the issue again, yet it did not respond until 7 October 2022, when it acknowledged the resident’s complaint. It was clear the resident was distressed about the on-going noise issue, yet the landlord took no action. The landlord was also aware of the resident’s vulnerabilities, yet there is no evidence it took this into consideration either. Landlords need to ensure they have good communication with residents, especially those with vulnerabilities. Not doing so showed a disregard of the resident’s situation and was not in line with the Dispute Resolution Principles. The landlord’s lack of action would have caused the resident concern about its ability to carry out effective repairs in a reasonable period. Especially given that it was 4 months since the resident had first raised the issue.
Following this, the landlord visited the resident’s property with its repairs team manager, project lead for the new builds, and its surveyor. While it would have been reasonable for this to have been undertaken sooner, it showed a renewed commitment from the landlord to find the underlying cause of the issue and a resolution for the resident.
Following the visit to the resident’s property, the landlord set out the action it was going to take to remedy the issue. This highlighted a commitment to resolving the issue and gave the resident an idea of the action it was going to take.
However, its response provided no timescale for when the action would be taken. The landlord was already well outside of its published timescales to complete a repair and the resident would have been frustrated at the landlord’s further lack of clarity, delays, and inconvenience caused to him. The Ombudsman understands where there is a potential latent defect, additional time for determining responsibility may be needed. However, this delay and lack of information was unreasonable, especially given the time taken by the landlord to acknowledge the reports of defects in the first place.
The landlord did not take further action until February 2023, when it contacted the developer for a joint visit to the property. This delay—3 months after the earlier visit and 8 months after the resident first raised the issue—was inappropriate. Landlords should promptly address residents’ concerns in line with their own policies, especially given the residents repeated assertions of the impact on him. The lack of action highlights a disregard for the resident’s situation and highlights an ineffective system for tracking repairs.
The resident sent an email to the landlord after the visit, discussing the solution proposed by the plumber and expressing his opinion that it would not be effective. While the Ombudsman acknowledges the resident’s right to their own opinion, the landlord is entitled to rely on the expertise of its qualified contractors. It is reasonable for the landlord to follow a systematic process to address issues and find a solution. The resident invested significant time in detailed emails outlining the actions he believed the landlord should take to resolve the matter. Consequently, it would have been beneficial for the landlord to explain its rationale for following its own qualified staff and their step-by-step approach to resolving issues. It did not do this, however.
On many occasions throughout the duration of the issue, the resident said that he was going to get his own plumber in to resolve the issue as the landlord was not taking action. There is no evidence that the landlord discussed the possible implications of the resident obtaining his own plumber to do the work. The Ombudsman would expect the landlord to have clarified its position in relation to this point and set out if this was something that would be available to the resident.
The contractors report, from 30 March 2023, confirmed a repair was undertaken and soundproof insulation was installed. However, the resident informed the landlord on 2 April 2023 that the issue remained, and he had been unable to test the issue prior to the plumber leaving. Given the length of time it had taken the landlord to undertake a resolution, it would have been appropriate for the landlord to have informed its operative to properly test the remedy to check it had resolved the issue. Not doing caused the resident to spend further time chasing a resolution and to live with the noise for longer.
From the outset, when the resident raised the issues with the landlord, he emphasised the serious impact the noise was having on his well-being and that it was heightened due to his autism. However, there is no evidence to suggest that the landlord ever considered this impact or engaged in a discussion with the resident to offer relevant support. The landlord disregarded this crucial aspect while trying to find a resolution. It is essential for landlords to recognise vulnerabilities and tailor their approach accordingly in such situations. Not doing so highlighted a lack of a resident centred approach in finding a solution.
Overall, the landlords handling of the residents reports of noise coming from his soil stack fell well below the standards expected by the Ombudsman. From the outset, the landlord did not take action to investigation the issue, it did not communicate effectively with the resident and left him spending time chasing a response from the landlord on many occasions. When it did visit, it did not raise the repairs leading to a further delay. It then undertook a further inspection and set out the action it intended to take but then again did not raise the promised repairs promptly. It showed a disregard to the distress caused to the resident and left him living in a property which he could not enjoy.
Taking into account the above, there was maladministration in the landlords handling of the resident’s reports of noise coming from the soil stack.
A compensation order has therefore been made for £800, made up of the following:
1. £300 for the time taken by the resident to pursue a resolution.
2. £300 for the overall distress and inconvenience caused.
3. £200 for failing to take into account the resident’s autism and the impact on him.
We encourage landlords to self-assess against the Ombudsman’s Spotlight reports following publication. In January 2024 we published our Spotlight on “Attitudes, respect and rights”. The evidence gathered during this investigation shows the landlord’s practice was not in line with that recommended in the Spotlight report. We encourage the landlord to consider the findings and recommendations of our Spotlight report unless the landlord can provide evidence it has self-assessed already.

Balcony and windows

The resident raised an issue with his balcony door frame on 23 September 2022. The landlord raised a repair for this; however, the repair log shows this issue was “abandoned” on the same date. There is no evidence that this was communicated to the resident. Landlords need to ensure they have effective communication with residents. It would have been appropriate for it to have communicated its position with the resident and the reason why the repair had been closed.
The resident raised this issue again on 26 September 2022 when he had said he was going to make a claim via the Local Authority Building Control (LABC) warranty. The resident’s lease sets out that he must not make a claim via this route without first notifying the landlord. However, no evidence has been provided to show that the landlord discussed this with the resident. Doing so would have provided the resident with clarity on whether he could follow this route. It would have also been a further opportunity for the landlord to have raised a repair request for the doors or set out its position to the resident with regards to latent defects.
The landlord attended to inspect the windows and doors on 27 October 2022 and confirmed that they were misaligned. This visit was appropriate and would have reassured the resident it was taking his concerns seriously.
The resident said he would hire his own specialist to inspect windows and doors. However, the landlord recommended against it, emphasising that they would work with the developer to find a solution. This reassurance prevented the need for private engagement and assured the resident action would be taken.
Further to this, it confirmed it would refer the windows and doors to the developer as a possible latent defect; this was a reasonable response. However, evidence shows that the landlord did not contact the developer until February 2023, 3 months after the first commitment to do so. This delay was inappropriate and would have frustrated the resident, who had expected prompt action. The landlord needs to ensure it has effective systems to track planned actions and ensure prompt resolution. Not doing so meant the residents expectations were not met.
The developer confirmed that there were no latent defects, and that evidence showed the doors had been adjusted by someone else. However, in an email, the developer mentioned sourcing a part to fix the patio door but said it would not replace the threshold. Yet there is no evidence that this was communicated to the resident or that the landlord clarified what action it was going to take to resolve the issue with the windows going forward.
The landlord’s overall communication in relation to this issue fell well below the standards expected by the Ombudsman. While it undertook an inspection of the issue and confirmed it would refer the issue to the developer, it delayed unnecessarily in doing so, causing the resident to spend further time chasing a response. When the developer confirmed it was not a latent defect but would undertake some repairs, there is no evidence that the landlord raised a repair to undertake the further work needed on the windows. All the above would have affected the resident’s enjoyment of his home and led to him paying for his own specialist report.
Taking into account the above, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s report of repairs needed to his balcony patio doors and windows.
A compensation order has therefore been made for £500, made up of the following:
1. £200 for the time taken to pursue a response.
2. £150 for not referring the issue to the developer promptly.
3. £150 for the distress and inconvenience caused.
We encourage landlords to self-assess against the Ombudsman’s Spotlight reports following publication. In May 2023 we published our Spotlight on Knowledge and information Management (KIM). The evidence gathered during this investigation shows the landlord’s practice was not in line with that recommended in the Spotlight report. We encourage the landlord to consider the findings and recommendations of our Spotlight report unless the landlord can provide evidence it has self-assessed already.

Other defects

In his complaint on 26 September 2022, the resident raised many other defects within his property that he wanted repairing. He said that he reported these, as asked, to the repairs team but said they “refused” to deal with them as they were unaware of how to deal with new build defects. The Ombudsman has not seen evidence showing when he initially reported these issues or whether the landlord declined to repair them and therefore an assessment of this point cannot be made. However, landlords need to ensure their staff have the knowledge to differentiate between repairs and new build defects, allowing them to raise the necessary repairs.
Following the resident’s complaint, the landlord attended the resident’s property to inspect all the issues raised. This was appropriate and showed a commitment to giving the resident a resolution.
The survey highlighted the outstanding defects and in its stage 2 response, the landlord set out the actions it had agreed to take which included fixing the defects. Providing the resident with the clear actions it intended to take would have provided clarity to the resident and a reassurance that he would get a resolution of his issues.
However, the response provided no timescale of when the landlord would commit to the planned action. Given the length of time since the resident had raised the defects, it would have been helpful for the landlord to have provided further clarity to manage the resident’s expectations.
The Ombudsman does not doubt the resident’s position with regards to the defect, we cannot comment on the defects reported soon after the resident moved in due to the lack of evidence. Overall, the landlord responded appropriately when these issues were raised during the resident’s complaint. The landlord conducted an inspection, identified necessary repairs, and communicated a list of intended actions to address the problem. While added clarity on timescales in the landlord’s response would have been helpful, it does not warrant an adverse finding.
Therefore, there was no maladministration in the landlords handling of the resident’s reports of other defects in the property.

Complaint Handling

The resident raised a complaint on 17 July 2022, 13 September 2022, and 26 September 2022; the landlord did not acknowledge any of them. Not acknowledging the complaint was not in line with the landlord’s own policy or he Ombudsman complaint handling code (the Code) which sets out that complaints should be responded to within 10 working days at stage 1. Not acknowledging the complaint cause the resident to spend time chasing a response.
After not receiving a response, the resident raised a further complaint via the arm’s length body who had marketed the new build property the resident had bought. This was appropriately sent to the landlord’s complaint department who acknowledged the complaint on 7 October 2022.
However, in acknowledging the complaint, the landlord said it was going to escalate the complaint to stage 2 as the resident’s complaint spanned multiple departments. The Code clearly sets out that a complaint should go through a 2 stage process. This is to give the landlord the chance to put things right through a 2 stage 2 process but also for the resident to air his concerns and ensure timely actions can be undertaken. Escalating the complaint to stage 2 denied the resident the opportunity and benefit for his complaint to be dealt with at 2 stages.
The landlord said it would response by 28 October 2022; within 20 working days. However, in line its policy and the Code, it contacted the resident prior to this date and requested an extension.
The landlord gave its stage 2 response on 1 November 2022. A landlord’s complaint response should, where it acknowledges fault, set out the actions it has already taken or intends to take to put things right and should include a remedy reflective of the extent of the service failure. While its response set out the actions it intended to take, it provided no clear timescale for its actions to manage his expectations. Not doing so left the resident wondering when the promised actions would be done.
The landlord upheld the complaint and acknowledged it had not communicated promptly. It did not offer a remedy to the resident or apologise for its lack of communication. Its lack of empathy towards the resident for its admitted failings highlighted the lack of a resident centred approach to its complaint handling.
Overall, the landlord’s complaint handling was not of the standard expected by the Ombudsman or that which is set out in the Code. The landlord did not acknowledge the residents first 3 complaints. It then did not give the resident the opportunity of a 2 stage complaint process. Further to this, its complaint response did not provide clarity on when its promised actions would be undertaken. Despite the landlord’s own admission that its communication was not prompt, it did offer a sincere remedy for its failings.
Therefore, there was maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.
A compensation order has been made for £300, made up of the following:
1. £150 for not acknowledging the resident’s first complaints.
2. £100 for not following a 2 stage complaint process.
3. £50 for the distress and inconvenience caused.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of noise from the soil stack.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of repairs needed to his balcony patio doors and windows.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme there was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of other defects in his property.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme there was maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Orders

Within 4 weeks of the date of this determination the landlord must pay compensation to the resident of £1,600, made up of the following:
1. £800 for the failings shown in its handling of the residents reports of noise from the soil stack.
2. £500 for the failings shown in its handling of the resident’s report of repairs needed to his balcony patio doors and windows.
3. £300 for its complaint handling.
Within 4 weeks of this determination, the landlord must arrange for a surveyor to inspect the soil stack at the resident’s property if the issue is not resolved. Within 2 weeks after the inspection, the landlord must start the necessary repairs. If the issue persists beyond 6 weeks, the landlord must provide a clear timetable for resolving it. If resolution is not possible, the landlord must explain the reasons to the resident and this service.
Within 4 weeks of the date of this determination, if the windows have not been repaired, the landlord must raise a repair request for this to be completed. The landlord must also provide, to the resident and this Service, a clear timetable for when the repairs will be undertaken.
Within 4 weeks of the date of this determination a senior member of the landlord’s staff must write to the resident to apologise for the failings found in this report.
Within 4 weeks of the date of this determination the landlord must provide evidence of compliance with the above orders.