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

Kingston upon Hull City Council (202314548)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202314548

Kingston upon Hull City Council

13 September 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

  1. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of various repairs to the property.

Background

  1. The resident holds a secure tenancy which started on 4 September 2017. The property is a 2-bedroom house. The resident is registered blind and he told the landlord that he had mental health concerns.
  2. The resident made a complaint to the landlord on 22 July 2023. He said he was unhappy with ongoing repairs to the front door and the roof. He said that when it rained, the rainwater entered the property through the roof, which caused mould to grow on the walls. He said the outstanding repairs impacted his mental and physical health. He asked the landlord to complete the repairs, admit its fault with the roof, and redecorate the house.
  3. The landlord provided its stage 1 complaint response to the resident on 11 August 2023. It said:
    1. It had previously arranged the outstanding repairs, but cancelled the works following an incident which could have caused physical harm to an operative.
    2. For the next 6 months, it could only visit the resident in pairs as it had a duty of care to its staff. It said that arranging additional resources for appointments may cause delays.
    3. It completed a surveyor’s inspection on 27 July 2023. It raised the works to address the external brickwork and damp and mould within the property on the following day. Its contractors would attend on 18 August 2023 to create an action plan and appointment dates to complete the repairs.
    4. It could not find any signs of a roof leak during the inspection on 27 July 2023. It instead found a lack of loft insulation which could cause cold spots and condensation. It said its heating insulation contractors would attend on 17 August 2023 to inspect the loft and arrange any necessary repairs.
    5. It would monitor the repairs through to completion. It gave him a key point of contact for the duration of the works.
    6. It did not uphold the complaint because it had previously tried to complete the repairs, but it could not do so following the incident at the property. It had since re–issued the works required.
  4. The resident escalated his complaint to stage 2 of the complaints process on 14 August 2023. He said he was unhappy with the timescales for the repairs. He asked why delays occurred and to meet with the relevant parties.
  5. On 7 September 2023, the landlord provided its stage 2 complaint response to the resident. It said:
    1. Its contractors assessed the outstanding repairs as agreed on 18 August 2023. It had since booked the works to start on 18 September 2023 and these would take 3 days to complete.
    2. The resident requested mediation to address the remaining aspects of the complaint. It said it provided mediation through an external company and it was sorting a new contract for this service. It hoped to be able to book mediation in October 2023 and would update him when possible.
  6. The resident escalated his complaint to this Service as he remained unhappy with the outstanding repairs which were not completed as arranged. The complaint became one that the Ombudsman could investigate on 1 July 2024.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

  1. The resident has said that in 2021 he was injured by scaffolding at the property. The Ombudsman cannot consider complaints which relate to historical events because the quality and availability of any evidence that may have existed at the time may not be present now. The focus of this investigation will therefore be on the period from 12 months prior to when the resident raised his complaint. This is in accordance with paragraph 42(c) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme.
  2. It is evident that the resident is currently dissatisfied with the landlord’s handling of events that occurred after the September 2023 final complaint response. This includes recent concerns with a decant (temporary move) offer and alleged harassment from the landlord’s staff members. The resident has made a separate complaint about these issues. This Service is unable to investigate those matters until they have exhausted the landlord’s complaints process and the resident may wish to bring that complaint to the Ombudsman as a new case to investigate if needed. This is in accordance with paragraph 42(a) of the Scheme.
  3. The resident said that the landlord’s handling of the repairs to the property affected his mental health. While this Service does not doubt the resident’s comments about his health, it is outside our remit to draw conclusions on the causation of, or liability for, impacts on health and wellbeing. This is in accordance with paragraph 42(f) of the Scheme.

The landlord’s handling of various repairs to the property

  1. The resident’s tenancy agreement states in paragraph 21.1 that he must allow the landlord and its contractors safe and effective access and entry to the property when required. This includes carrying out inspections, or repairs and maintenance.
  2. The first report of a suspected leak into the property was on 15 December 2022. The resident reported a wet patch on the ceiling above the sink in the bathroom. The landlord inspected the property on the same day. It could not find the source of the water ingress. It raised works to install scaffolding to investigate the roof. It inspected the roof on 14 February 2023 and renewed the lead around the stench pipe. Although it took around 2 months to inspect the roof, this timeframe was reasonable given that the landlord needed to arrange for scaffolding to be erected.
  3. The landlord returned to the property on 1 March 2023 to investigate a build up of water caused by condensation in the bathroom. It is unclear whether this was a pre-arranged appointment following the previous works, or if it attended due to a further report from the resident. The landlord identified that it needed to complete a mould wash to the bathroom ceiling and upgrade the extractor fan. The repair notes also state that it found a broken tile on the roof above the bathroom. It is unclear from the landlord’s records whether it completed these works.
  4. On 9 March 2023, the resident submitted a claim for damage to the landlord’s insurance team. He said that water ingress had damaged the internal paintwork, and he wanted it to pay for the decoration costs. He later told the landlord on 29 March 2023 that he did not want any repairs completing until he had spoken to a solicitor. It is therefore not solely the landlord’s fault that it may not have completed the works following the visit on 1 March 2023.
  5. Further, on 28 March 2023, the landlord’s contractors inspected the roof and loft space again. It did not find any defects. However, it noted that an incident occurred where the resident pulled the operative down from the loft space and physically escorted him out of the property. This resulted in the landlord implementing a ‘visit in pairs’ instruction, which it referred to in its initial complaint response. This was a reasonable approach for the landlord to take as it had a duty of care to protect its staff.
  6. Following the resident’s refusal of works on 29 March 2023, he contacted the landlord on 24 April 2023 and 4 May 2023 to ask it to complete the repairs. The landlord has failed to evidence any steps taken to arrange the repairs until 22 May 2023, which is a shortcoming. However, the resident later declined the works again on 24 May 2023 due to a personal issue.
  7. On 9 June 2023, the landlord raised works to address the brickwork above the front door and address damp and mould issues with the plasterwork internally. It arranged an appointment to assess the works on 6 July 2023. During this appointment, the resident asked it to cancel the works until a surveyor had inspected the property. This was because he believed the damp issues started after it replaced the roof during planned works in 2019.
  8. It was reasonable for the landlord to listen to the resident and arrange a surveyor’s appointment, but this request added further delays. It completed this inspection on 27 July 2023. It found gaps in the loft insulation and told the resident this could cause cold spots and condensation. It could not find any roof leaks, and it believed the lack of loft insulation caused the damp.
  9. The landlord raised various repairs on 28 July 2023. Its contractors attended on 18 August 2023 to create a plan for the repairs. It booked the repairs to start on 18 September 2023 and confirmed that the works would take 3 days. The repairs were to:
    1. Carry out a CCTV survey of the rear drains.
    2. Overhaul the toilet cistern.
    3. Remove and renew the end panel to kitchen.
    4. Remove and renew the skirting.
    5. Hack off plaster and renew.
    6. Paint the handrails to the rear entrance door.
    7. Fit an angle iron/bar above the front entrance door.
    8. Renew the UPVC architrave and beading above the front door.
    9. Repoint the open mortar joints to the front and rear elevation.
  10. There were delays of 3 weeks between raising the works and the landlord’s contractors assessing the works at the property. While this delay would have understandably caused inconvenience to the resident, it is acknowledged that there were mitigating factors present. It needed to arrange additional staffing to attend the appointment as part of the visit in pairs instruction. This would have taken time to arrange based on the availability of multiple operatives. This delay was therefore not a failing.
  11. The landlord and its contractors had arranged the works to start on 18 September 2023. It confirmed this appointment within its final complaint response. However, the landlord’s records show that the resident told the landlord to cancel the works on 12 September 2023. It was therefore not a failing of the landlord that it could not complete the works as scheduled.
  12. Within the final complaint response, the landlord said that it would arrange mediation to address the remaining aspects of the resident’s complaint. This was appropriate in the circumstances, given that he had asked to meet with relevant parties. It outlined that it could not give an appointment date as it was renewing its contract with the mediation provider but it would keep him updated. It was reasonable for the landlord to manage the resident’s expectations due to an issue that was outside of its control. The resident later refused the mediation offered on 16 October 2023. It is therefore not a failing of the landlord that the mediation did not go ahead.
  13. The Ombudsman is not questioning the reasons why the resident refused to engage with the landlord. It is clear the resident was frustrated with the progress of the repairs. Given that the resident refused access on multiple occasions, contrary to the terms of his tenancy, there were obstacles that prevented the landlord progressing repairs. The landlord would not typically be responsible for the delays caused in this instance.
  14. Although this Service is not investigating events which took place after the landlord’s final response, it is recognised that the landlord made further attempts to arrange the repairs. This was appropriate in the circumstances.
  15. After the complaints process ended, the landlord was able to complete some repairs. On 5 October 2023, the landlord topped up the loft insulation. This addressed the issues with cold spots and condensation which it believed had caused the damp. It is unclear when it arranged this, but it was appropriate for it to do so to address the issues that it had diagnosed.
  16. The landlord also raised works to address the brickwork to the front of the property on 10 January 2024. The brickwork was crumbling, and it needed to repoint the open mortar joints and fit an iron bar above the door to carry any brick slips. On 11 January 2024, the resident refused the works. In response, the landlord arranged a joint meeting at the resident’s property to discuss a way forward, which it did on 15 January 2024. It then completed works to the brickwork on 22 January 2024.
  17. The resident has told this Service that he feels the landlord did not offer appropriate support to him given his health needs. He said that the outstanding works and the landlord’s handling of the repairs impacted his health. While the Ombudsman does not dispute the resident’s comments, the investigation of this particular complaint has found the landlord made multiple attempts to support the resident in completing the works. The mediation offered was appropriate and represented an attempt to help reach agreement with the resident and allow him to be involved in the process.
  18. The resident has also told this Service that he was unhappy that the landlord did not offer the option of a decant. There is no evidence available to suggest that a decant was required or that the resident had requested this.
  19. It is understood that most of the repairs identified following the surveyor’s inspection on 27 July 2023 remain outstanding. It is also understood that the landlord has identified further necessary repairs after the final complaint response. The Ombudsman acknowledges that the delays were not solely caused by the landlord. The resident is obligated in line with his tenancy agreement to allow access to the property when required for inspections, repairs and maintenance. Based on the evidence provided, the landlord tried to support the resident on multiple occasions to complete the necessary repairs.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of various repairs to the property.

Recommendations

  1. The landlord should continue to try and support the resident to arrange access to complete the repairs. It should consider renewing its offer of mediation to help address the issues.