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

Colchester City Council (202219825)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202219825

Colchester Borough Council

26 March 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:
    1. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of a leak affecting his property.
    2. The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s complaints handling.

Background

  1. The resident holds a secure tenancy to the property, owned by the landlord, which started on 31 March 2014. The property is a ground floor studio flat. The landlord has no vulnerabilities for the resident listed on its systems. However, as part of this investigation the resident has made the landlord aware he suffers from depression and diabetes.
  2. On 13 December 2021 the resident contacted the landlord to report damp patches above his front door and near his kitchen window. The landlord’s contractor attended on 3 February 2022 to undertake an inspection of the issue.
  3. The resident submitted a stage 1 complaint to the landlord on 18 May 2022. It said that he was told someone from the landlord would be in touch with him but it had not and the issue had not been resolved despite being reported 6 months prior. The landlord responded on 27 May 2022 informing the resident that its repairs surveyor and area housing officer would undertake a joint inspection of the issue. It said that they would contact the resident in the near future to arrange an appointment.
  4. On 16 June 2022 the resident requested the landlord escalate his complaint to stage 2 of its complaints process. The resident confirmed an inspection had taken place. However, he remained dissatisfied as it had been 6 months since he reported the issue and was aware it would take even more time to resolve. The landlord provided its final response to the complaint on 14 July 2022. It said that the complaint was not fully investigated at the first stage of its process and that the whole soil stack system would need to be replaced. It said it was unacceptable how long the repair had been outstanding and offered to replace the resident’s carpet and provide him with a decorating voucher. It also agreed to visit the resident when the works were in progress and discuss further compensation.
  5. In bringing his complaint to this Service the resident has said that he felt like a prisoner in his living room whilst the leak was on-going and that he has been let down by the landlord.

Assessment and findings

Policies and procedures

  1. The landlord’s repairs policy outlines three timescales in which it will prioritise responsive repairs. These are; “Emergency repairs – attend within 4 hours and make safe and complete within 24 hours, if possible. Any follow up work to be raised as a new job and placed within its appropriate category. Urgent Repairs – attend within 3 working days, complete within 5 working days. Routine Repairs – attend within 5 working days, complete within 20 working days.”

Resident’s reports of a leak

  1. On 13 December 2021 the resident contacted the landlord concerning damp patches appearing above the front door and in his kitchen. In response the landlord raised a repair order for one of its contractors to undertake a damp inspection which was completed on 3 February 2022. This was 15 days outside the landlord’s timescale for routine repairs and the delay was unreasonable.
  2. Following the landlord’s inspection there is no evidence it followed up with the resident either to arrange follow on works or confirm the outcome of the inspection. This was unreasonable, resulted in a significant delay in the relevant repairs being undertaken and caused distress to the resident.
  3. On 18 May 2022 the resident was caused time and trouble in submitting a formal complaint through the landlord’s website as he had not heard from the landlord. It said that he had been experiencing a leak from above for 6 months and had been expecting to hear from the landlord. It explained that due to the damp his front door had become very difficult to open and close and that plaster was falling off the walls in his hall and kitchen. He followed this up with an email the next day outlining that the situation was causing him stress and exacerbating his depression.
  4. At this point the landlord was put on notice that the situation was impacting the resident’s health. Given this information it would have been reasonable for the landlord to have carried out an urgent inspection of the property. That it did not is a further failing to follow its policy and to give due regard to the resident’s vulnerabilities and to its duties set out in the Equality Act 2010.
  5. The landlord responded at the first stage of its complaints process on 27 May 2022 offering a joint inspection with a surveyor and housing officer. An inspection was undertaken in early June 2022 however there is no evidence the landlord updated the resident on its outcome. This was inappropriate. The landlord’s response was dismissive of the resident’s concerns and a missed opportunity to identify what went wrong and resolve the issues the resident was experiencing. As a result of this the resident was caused more time and trouble to escalate his complaint to stage 2 of the landlord’s complaints procedure on 16 June 2022. He said that an inspection had taken place but no repairs and that it was over 6 months since he reported the issue.
  6. On 14 July 2022 the landlord responded to the resident’s complaint at stage 2 of its complaints process. The response said that its surveyor had identified that the whole soil stack system for the property needed to be replaced. It apologised for not progressing the resident’s reports in line with its service standards and that works should begin week commencing 18 July 2022. The landlord also agreed to replace the resident’s hall carpet, provide painting equipment for the damaged rooms and discuss further compensation once the works were in progress. This went some way to putting things right for the resident however the landlord failed to outline any learning taken from its failures identified in its complaint response.
  7. On 22 July 2022 the resident was caused further inconvenience as the landlord had failed to fulfil its promises made in its stage 2 response. The resident requested his complaint was taken to the next stage of the landlord’s complaints process. He said it was now 8 months since his initial report and still nothing had been done. The landlord responded on the same day confirming the resident had exhausted its complaints process and referring him to this Service. It also arranged an appointment for a surveyor to update the resident and assured him that the complaints team were monitoring the outstanding works. The landlord did not apologise or explain to the resident why the repairs hadn’t started. In its response the landlord seemed unsure if the works had started or not and asked this question of the resident.
  8. Repairs to renew the soil stack system were completed on 4 September 2022. This was 34 weeks outside of the landlord’s timescale for routine repairs, was unreasonable and resulted in distress to the resident whilst the works were outstanding. Landlords are required to look at the condition of properties using a risk assessment approach. The Housing Health and Safety Rating System (HHSRS) does not set out any minimum standards, but it is concerned with avoiding, or minimising potential hazards. The HHSRS highlights inadequate and unhygienic provision for disposal of household waste as a hazard to health. That the landlord did not carry out this repair in a reasonable timeframe demonstrates a failure to its duties set out in the HHSRS.
  9. On 6 December 2022 the resident contacted the landlord to report that it had been nearly a year since his initial report but his property remained in the same condition. He also said that he was told the landlord would help him make a compensation claim for his distress and damaged items. On 4 January 2023 the landlord requested an itemised list of damaged possessions from the resident. The resident responded the same day providing an account of his damaged possessions.
  10. On 13 January 2023 the landlord responded to the resident confirming it would replace his hall carpet, provide a decoration voucher and offer £300 for the stress and inconvenience the issue had caused him. It also advised that if the resident did not have home contents insurance it would refer the matter to its liability insurer. This was reasonable advice and in line with the landlord’s complaints policy which says it will not treat insurance claims through its complaints process. However, the resident first mentioned damaged items in his initial stage one complaint on 18 May 2022. Had further enquiries been made at that time this information would have been provided to the resident much sooner. It is a failing that they were not and this caused a delay in the resident making a claim.
  11. The resident responded on the same day outlining his dissatisfaction with the offer of compensation. He also said he did not have home contents insurance and questioned the value of a decoration voucher when the plastering remained outstanding. The landlord replied on 17 January 2023 confirming it would refer the issue to its insurer, was aware the plastering remained outstanding and front door required adjusting. It also confirmed it would not change its compensation offer and believed this to be reasonable.
  12. It is unclear from the information available when the plaster works to the resident’s hall and kitchen were completed. The landlord’s records indicate these were completed on 14 October 2022. However, emails from the resident and landlord clearly show the works remained outstanding in January 2023. This is a failure in the landlord’s record keeping and as a result we cannot determine when this work was completed.
  13. As part of his complaint to this Service the resident has said he was initially told that the landlord would redecorate his hall and kitchen but it only provided a decoration voucher. The resident said that it was only due to his persistence that the landlord carried out decorations. Having reviewed the landlord’s records they support the resident’s submission. When repairs were ordered by the landlord on 30 August 2022 these had the notes that the kitchen and hall should be redecorated once the plaster had dried.
  14. In January 2023 the resident was told that the landlord would not decorate and was provided with a decoration voucher. However, on 16 May 2023 works were completed to redecorate the resident’s kitchen and hall and renew a hall cupboard door. This was again a failure in the landlord’s record keeping that its previous commitment to decorate was not recorded as a follow on action. This was unreasonable and resulted in further delays to the works being fully resolved.
  15. As part of his complaint to this Service the resident has also said he believes the landlord should have moved him to temporary accommodation during the repairs. The resident has said the smell from the leak was unbearable. The landlord has said that the main focus of the leak was from a bath overflow and no smells were detected by officers who visited the property. It was inappropriate for the landlord to refute the resident’s lived experience as a result of its officers visiting the property. The landlord was aware that the leak was coming from a soil stack which carries waste water. It is therefore reasonable to conclude the resident has experienced bad odours. This would have further damaged the landlord and resident relationship.
  16. The Ombudsman has been unable to consider whether or not the landlord should have moved the resident during the repairs. If the resident requests to be moved it is for the landlord to consider the condition of the property and appropriately respond to the resident. Having carefully considered the resident’s correspondence with the landlord there is no evidence of the resident reporting an issue with smells prior to December 2022 when works to stop the leak had already been completed. There is also no record of the resident requesting temporary accommodation at the time of the repair. Given this, we are unable to find a failing in the landlord’s handling of this aspect of the resident’s complaint.
  17. Overall the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports have been characterized by delays, poor communication and inconsistent record keeping resulting in distress to the resident. The resident made initial reports of damp on 13 December 2021 and works to the resident’s property were not  completed in full until 16 May 2023. When the landlord discovered that the leak was being caused by waste water from the soil stack there was no assessment of the health risks this posed. While the Ombudsman accepts that landlord’s comments that replacing the soil stack system was a major repair, this represents a 14 month delay.
  18. The resident had known vulnerabilities which he made the landlord aware of. He informed the landlord that his ill health was being exacerbated by the outstanding repairs. Given the significant distress caused to the resident this all amounts to severe maladministration.
  19. A loss of amenity calculation has been completed at 10% of the resident’s weekly rent for the period the leak remained outstanding between January 2022 and September 2022. A further £800 has been awarded in recognition of the significant distress caused to the resident and a series of orders are set out below.

Complaint handling

  1. The resident made a formal complaint to his landlord via its online webform on 18 May 2022. The landlord responded at the first stage of its complaints process on 27 May 2022. Having carefully reviewed the landlord’s response it is noted that this is not in line with the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code).
  2. The Code sets out requirements for member landlords that allow them to respond to complaints effectively and fairly. It states that “Landlords must confirm the following in writing to the resident at the completion of stage one in clear, plain language: the complaint stage – the decision on the complaint – the reasons for any decisions made – details of how to escalate the matter to stage two if the resident is not satisfied with the answer.”
  3. The landlord’s first stage response on 27 May 2022 did not address these points and is limited in its investigation. This was unreasonable and resulted in the resident needing to escalate his complaint. In its stage two response the landlord has acknowledged that the stage one complaint wasn’t addressed fully but has not offered an apology for this. Furthermore the landlord did not set out any learning from the complaints and as discussed earlier in this determination repeated its mistakes. This amounts to service failure and an order is set out below.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was severe maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of a leak.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

Orders

  1. The landlord should take the following action within the next four weeks and provide evidence of compliance with these orders to the Ombudsman:
    1. Pay the resident the sum of £1104.90 compensation. (Please note if the £300 compensation previously offered has been paid this can be deducted from the total) This consists of:
      1. £254.90 amenity loss calculation – this is 10% of the resident’s weekly rent of 74.97 over 34 weeks.
      2. £800 for the distress and inconvenience caused in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s report of a leak.
      3. £50 for the inconvenience caused in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.
    2. An executive officer should offer to meet the resident in person to apologise for the failings identified in this report.
    3. The landlord should carry out refresher training with its Complaint Handlers involved in this case with a particular focus on carrying out investigations, compliance with The Code and identifying lessons learned.
    4. The landlord should also review the failings identified in this report against the Ombudsman’s spotlight reports on knowledge and information management, and on attitude, respect and rights.

Recommendations

  1. The resident has informed this Service that he is unsure as to the current position of his liability insurance claim with the landlord’s insurer. The resident has said they requested evidence of the damaged items which he was unable to provide but he has not heard anything since. Given this, the landlord should make contact with its insurer and provide an update to the resident on this claim and any action required to move this forward.