Guildford Borough Council (202324616)

A blue and grey text

Description automatically generated

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202324616

Guildford Borough Council

23 August 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 handling of:
1. Repairs, including:
  1. Rewiring.
  2. Drooping ceilings.
  3. Kitchen and Bathroom upgrades.
  4. A boiler repair.
2. Damp and mould.
3. Asbestos and a leak through the shed roof.
4. A front door replacement.
5. The resident’s complaint.

Background

The resident is a secure tenant under an agreement dated July 2010. He lives in a 2–bedroom bungalow with his wife. They both have medical conditions and vulnerabilities, of which the landlord is aware.
Between October 2022 and June 2023, the resident received a number of visits from contractors about repairs needed at the property.
On 21 June 2023, the resident contacted the landlord and explained that despite having received numerous visits from different contractors in previous months, he still had problems at his home with faulty heating, cracked and drooping ceilings, damp and mould in the wet room, bedroom, and lounge, a leaking shed roof, and wiring. He also explained that the wet room’s floor needed replacing, and that he had originally raised these issues with it in January 2023.
The resident then raised a formal complaint by email on 29 June 2023. He reiterated that the repair works were outstanding, and that due to the amount of works needed they could not be done while he resided at the property. He also explained that despite numerous visits from different contractors, no work had been completed and nothing had been explained to him.
The landlord responded at stage 1 of its complaints process on 8 September 2023. It said:
1. It recognised the resident’s concerns about the condition of his home, and his and his wife’s safety during the required repair and re-wire work, but relocating them during the “construction phase” was not a viable option.
2. Its technical team had provided a summary of events that indicated abusive behaviour towards its contractors by the resident, and false accusations made about their work.
3. The resident had refused to accept a new front door for fire regulations, and the landlord would need to enforce the work though his tenancy agreement if he continued to decline it.
4. The resident had accused the landlord of “bullying” him due to disagreements around safety measures.
5. The resident had raised concerns about damp and asbestos at the property, but had refused access, leading to delays in resolving the problems.
6. The resident had initially resisted the rewiring work, until an agreement was made to carry it out in July 2023. Since then, the resident had not allowed access.
7. The resident had raised concerns about the amount of photos being taken by contractors inside his property, but it could assure him they were only taken as evidence of the work needed.
8. Boiler breakdowns could happen in “any system”, and the landlord had experienced “challenges” with its contractor that caused delays. It said it attempted repairs on 12 May 2023, but the resident declined the work. It had then tried to reschedule but a date could not be confirmed. It then explained that its contractor would contact the resident and arrange a repair for the following week if the resident wished to proceed.
9. The complaint was not upheld.
The resident said he was dissatisfied with the response on 15 September 2023. He reiterated that the repairs remained outstanding, and said that the allegations made against him about refusing access and abusing staff were false. He requested evidence of his actions.
The landlord provided its final response on 14 November 2023. It said upon reviewing the information available, it could find no evidence of the resident being abusive towards staff, and apologised for the accusations that had been made. It upheld the complaint, and offered the resident £250 as a “gesture of goodwill” for the inconvenience caused. It also said it needed to:
1. Inspect his home to assess whether rewiring was needed, and discuss the process with the resident in full.
2. Investigate the ceilings and resolve the issue.
3. Re-assess whether replacement works were needed for his bathroom and kitchen, and whether or not the resident wanted them to go ahead.
4. Discuss the replacement of his front door with a fire door to ensure compliance with fire safety.
5. Resolve any damp, mould, and asbestos issues.
6. Resolve any issues with the shower.
The resident remains dissatisfied with the landlord’s response. When he contacted this Service in December 2023, and later in April 2024, he wanted outstanding repairs completed, compensation, and an explanation for the accusations made about his alleged behaviour. In an update to this Service on 24 June 2024, the landlord confirmed:
1. It visited the resident on 13 May 2024 to inspect the property and draft a schedule of repairs, which it shared with both him and this Service.
2. The resident emailed it on 24 June 2024 to say he disagreed with the contents of the schedule. As a result, the landlord cannot proceed with the planned repair work.
3. The resident had confirmed in November 2023 that he did not want his boiler replaced, and it had been given an annual inspection in January 2024.
4. The replacement of the resident’s front door was not needed.

Assessment and findings

The scope of the Ombudsman’s investigation

The resident has also raised issues about receiving a letter about an annual boiler service which he deemed “threatening,” and an access ramp and handrails that have not been fitted. However, there is no evidence he raised a complaint with the landlord about these specific issues when submitting his formal complaint in June 2023. In addition, following the landlord’s re-inspection of the property in May 2024, it drew up a new schedule for outstanding repairs works, which the resident disagrees with.
As these issues have not been through the landlord’s internal complaints procedure, this investigation will not be able to consider them. This is in accordance with paragraph 42a of the Scheme, which states that the Ombudsman may not consider complaints that, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, were made prior to having exhausted a member’s complaints procedure, unless there is evidence of a complaint-handling failure and the Ombudsman is satisfied that the member has not taken action within a reasonable timescale.
Additionally, the resident has said that some of the repair issues complained about have been going on for over 13 years. However, there is no evidence to show that he raised a formal complaint with the landlord about these issues until his formal complaint in June 2023. Because of this, this investigation will not be able to consider any issues that occurred prior to June 2022. This is in accordance with paragraph 42c of the Scheme, which states that the Ombudsman may not consider complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, were not brought to the attention of the member as a formal complaint within a reasonable period which would normally be within 12 months of the matters arising.

The landlord’s handling of repairs

The landlord was under a duty to carry out repairs at the property within a reasonable time of being given notice. This is set out in the written tenancy agreement and the implied terms in s.11(1)(c) of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985.
What is a reasonable time will depend on all the circumstances of a case. Most landlords will have repair policies that set out repair timescales within which they aim to complete the repairs. In this case, the landlord’s policy states that all repairs are given priority at the time of notification, and:
1. Emergency repairs are repairs that, if not attended to quickly, could lead to personal injury, damage to the property, or a health hazard. The landlord aims to attend to these within 4 hours.
2. Next day repairs are repairs that involve some risk to health, safety or welfare of residents, or are likely to cause some damage. The landlord aims to complete these by the end of the next working day after they are notified.
3. Urgent repairs are repairs that pose a slight risk to health and safety, or significant inconvenience. The landlord aims to complete these within 7 working days.
4. Normal repairs are routine repairs that do not significantly affect the use of the property. The landlord aims to complete these within 30 working days.
The landlord has said that it had previous issues with one of its contractors allegedly attending properties with “no warning or consultation”. Because of this it was concerned whether or not some of the works they had quoted for at the resident’s property were needed. In addition, the landlord had sent a stage 1 complaint response to the resident in June 2023 that told him although repairs needed completing, they could only be done without the resident present at the property, but that moving him and his wife was “not a viable option.” This information seems to have been provided by said contractor, who deemed moving the resident to be “too costly.”
Subsequently, in its stage 2 response to the resident, after ending its relationship with the contractor, the landlord proposed investigating the property to confirm exactly what works were required. The resident voiced his reluctance for another inspection, given what he felt had been an inordinate amount of previous visits from contractors, with little to no action being taken after. This was an understandable concern, but it was also appropriate for the landlord to explain the situation, and propose a way forward, which it did.
An agreement was reached on this issue between the landlord and the resident, and it visited his property on 13 May 2024 to inspect and draw up a schedule for repairs that were needed.
The resident told the landlord in June 2023 that its contractors had informed him in October and November 2022 the property needed re-wiring because it was “dangerous”. From the information available, it is unclear why these works were required, or why the wiring was deemed to be dangerous. If that was the case, it would be expected for the contractors to notify the landlord of this, and for it to respond within the guidelines of its own repairs policy for emergency, next-day, or urgent repair.
In February 2023, the resident confirmed that he spoke to the contractor about the re-wire, and requested it be rescheduled to July 2023, because he “couldn’t stand anymore visits, and needed to find alternative accommodation.” This was because he had been told by the landlord in the aforementioned stage 1 response that the works needed doing, but could not be carried out while he and his wife remained in the property, and moving them was “not a viable option.”
Given that the resident was first notified of this potential problem in October 2022, the landlord should have attended the property to assess the situation within the urgent repairs timescales of its repairs policy, at a minimum. No follow-up seems to have been done on this until a conversation with the resident in February 2023. By its own admission, the landlord also has no record of this issue, which is concerning given that in its stage 1 response it accused the resident of denying it access to carry out the works. While it is reasonable that the landlord has since assessed the issue further, and agreed to arrange further works if needed as per the above schedule, this was around 5 months after a potential problem was identified, which is an unreasonable delay, and one that has caused the resident significant confusion and distress.
The landlord also caused the resident further distress and confusion when it told him the works could not be carried out with him in the property, but that it could not move him. This led to the resident believing he was being threatened with eviction, which could have been avoided had the landlord explained its stance clearly from the outset. Although its repairs policy does not specify whether it will decant residents when major works are needed, the Ombudsman would typically expect a landlord to take that approach.
In June 2023, the resident told the landlord that he needed ceilings in the property fixed because they were “drooping”, and that while a repair had previously been done, it was “shoddy”. While its proposal to carry out rectification works and arrange alternative accommodation for the resident was reasonable following its visit to the property on 13 May 2024, it took the landlord 12 months to address the issue. This significant delay caused further distress and inconvenience to the resident, who was understandably worried about the safety of the structure.
In its stage 1 response to the resident in September 2023, the landlord said it had suggested a kitchen upgrade and it was the “resident’s choice to accept or decline it.” The resident believed he had been “coerced” into agreeing to it. Both parties have given conflicting accounts about this issue, and without any evidence to support either one, the Ombudsman is unable to make a finding on the landlord’s actions here.
The landlord also confirmed to the resident in October 2023 that it would inspect the property to see if an upgrade to his bathroom was needed, and go ahead with it if the resident wanted to do so. It is unclear from the landlord’s records what these upgrades were. However, the resident had raised concerns with the landlord in June 2023 about his wet room floor, as he believed it needed replacing. This does not seem to have been addressed until November 2023, when the landlord told the resident it would need to inspect the property and re-assess whether bathroom works were required. Following its reassessment in May 2024, it agreed to clean, decorate, and replace the bathroom flooring. This means it took the landlord almost a year to address the issue, which was unreasonable.
The landlord said in its stage 1 response that it had attempted to carry out repairs to the resident’s boiler on 12 May 2023, but that the resident “declined the repair during the visit.” It said it tried to confirm another appointment but was unsuccessful, so the job was closed, but it would reach out to him and rearrange it. In its contact with this Service on 26 April 2024, the landlord said a boiler replacement had been declined by the resident in June and October 2023 and in November 2023, the resident told the contractor he did not want the boiler replaced. On 25 January 2024, an annual boiler service also took place which found no issues. It is subsequently unclear what the reported fault was with the boiler, and whether the resident had requested for it to be looked at prior to May 2023. This appears to have been caused by a lack of transparency from the previous contractor, and poor record keeping by the landlord. There is also no information to show that the resident declined a repair during a visit in May 2023, or any evidence to show that the landlord’s contractor tried to rearrange the work after that visit.
While it is appropriate that the landlord has since proposed a new contractor look at the issue to determine whether or not a new boiler is required, it failed to appropriately respond to the issue in line with its own repairs policy, at the time of the resident’s stage 2 complaint.
In summary:
1. The landlord failed to follow up on a potential problem with the resident’s wiring within its own repair policy timescales.
2. The landlord did not repair the resident’s ceiling in adherence with its repairs policy.
3. The landlord did not repair the resident’s bathroom in adherence with its repairs policy.
4. The landlord did not resolve a boiler repair in adherence with its repairs policy.
The Ombudsman considers this amounts to maladministration by the landlord in its handling of repairs, and therefore it should pay the resident compensation to recognise how its failings impacted him.
The resident has explained the significant frustration, upset, confusion, and distress he and his wife have faced due to the delayed repairs and poor communication.
Having carefully considered the Ombudsman’s policy and guidance on remedies, a fair level of compensation would be £600. This is in line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance for failures that a landlord has made some attempt to put right, but failed to fully address the detriment to the resident.

Damp and mould

The landlord’s damp and mould policy says that it will investigate the cause of damp, mould and condensation, carrying out remedial repairs and actions as appropriate. The policy also says it will respond to reports of damp within a reasonable timescale. The timescale will depend on the severity and urgency of the problem, and the complexity of any solution or remedial works required. If it is unsafe for the resident to remain in the property while works are carried out, the landlord will make alternative accommodation arrangements.
In addition, the policy says that the landlord will diagnose the cause of damp correctly and deliver effective solutions based on dealing with the cause of damp, not just the symptom.
The landlord noted damp and mould as a “minor issue” at the property in December 2022, but took no further action until the resident reported damp and mould in his wet room, bedroom, and lounge to the landlord on 21 June 2023. In its stage 1 response in September 2023, the landlord said it had tried to arrange works to address the problem but the resident had denied access. However, the landlord later explained in its stage 2 response that it had no evidence to support this, and there is no information to show that the landlord tried to rearrange a follow up visit. In its November 2023 final response, it said it would visit the property to resolve any damp and mould issues, if the resident agreed to a visit.
Subsequently, the landlord undertook this visit in May 2024, 6 months after proposing to do so in its final response. It identified minor elements of damp and mould.
While it is noted there were some delays when the landlord could not gain access to the property, it is still unclear why it took as long as it did to address the problem. It has confirmed that the resident was proactive in cleaning the mould himself, but this should not have stopped the landlord from inspecting the problem.
The Ombudsman’s spotlight report on damp and mould (the DM report) recommends the landlord avoid taking action that solely places the onus on a resident to deal with damp and mould. It should evaluate what mitigations it can give for support when structural intervention is inappropriate and satisfy itself it is taking all reasonable steps, such as improved ventilation or other measures.
During the period covered in this investigation, most of the landlord’s handling of damp and mould in the resident’s property did not follow its damp and mould policy, or the DM report, which was inappropriate. This is because, as outlined above, it largely did not keep all of his property in repair, provide timely repairs, inspections, or mould washes, arrange damp and mould mitigation works, or keep suitable records in his case.
The Ombudsman therefore finds that there was maladministration by the landlord in its handling of damp and mould, and it has been ordered to:
1. Arrange a mould clean if it has not already done so.
2. Complete a redecoration of any affected areas.
3. Arrange for a contractor to establish what the cause of damp at the property is.
Additionally, further compensation is warranted to recognise the landlord’s delay in addressing the problem. A fair amount to recognise the distress and upset caused to the resident by these issues would be £400. This is in line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance for failures which have adversely affected a resident.

Asbestos and a leak in a shed roof

The landlord’s asbestos management policy says it is responsible for arranging the removal of any asbestos-containing material assessed as dangerous.
In January 2023, the resident said he had received previous visits from a contractor due to suspected asbestos in his shed roof, which was also leaking. The landlord again accused the resident of not allowing access for this issue in its stage 1 response. Concerningly however, the only report it had on file was from 2018. No explanation has been given for this, but it indicates that the landlord’s record-keeping was not accurate or up to date. An order has therefore been made below for it to review its record-keeping process, to ensure all contractor visits are recorded appropriately
Following its inspection on 13 May 2024, the landlord confirmed asbestos material in the resident’s shed roof, and leaks. It noted previous attempts to fix the leak had not worked, and that it would carry out a temporary repair by applying sealant. It also confirmed it would replace the roof with non-asbestos material.
The landlord has provided no evidence to show it adhered to its asbestos policy after the resident reported the problem in 2023. In addition, while it confirmed it would resolve the problem in its final response in November 2023, no action was taken until May 2024, which was inappropriate.
In summary, the landlord has failed to correct the resident’s asbestos problem in line with its own policy, causing the resident further frustration and inconvenience. However, it is also noted that the asbestos issue was outside of the resident’s home, and involved material that had not been disturbed, and so posed no immediate health risk.
To recognise the landlord’s delays in trying to resolve the problem, it has been ordered to pay the resident an additional £200 in compensation. This is in line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance for failures which it has made some attempt to put right, but has not fully recognised the failings identified in this investigation. It has also been ordered to keep the resident updated with its progress, and provide a timescale for when work is likely to be carried out.

A front door replacement

The landlord said in its stage 1 response that the resident refused the fitting of a new fire door, and that it would need to enforce the work through its tenancy agreement if refusal continued. The resident disputed this. When the landlord issued its final response, it said that it had no evidence of the resident’s refusal, and that it would “discuss replacement of the resident’s front door with a fire door to ensure compliance.” While this was appropriate, it offered no clear timescale for when it hoped to discuss the issue, or what potential next steps would be for the resident. Despite confirming it would discuss the issue, no further action appears to have been taken by the landlord, until it ascertained that a replacement door was not needed in May 2024. It is unclear why the contractor had previously told the resident otherwise, but the landlord has explained that it had concerns that the contractor was quoting for work that was not required. It also unclear why it took the landlord a further 6 months from the date of its stage 2 letter to resolve the issue.
In summary, there was a service failure by the landlord regarding this issue, and it failed to take appropriate action in adherence with its repair policy timescales. It has therefore been ordered to pay the resident an additional £100 in compensation to recognise the delays, and the confusion and frustration caused to the resident.

The resident’s complaint

Under the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code, landlords must ensure they:
1. Acknowledge a complaint within 5 working days.
2. Respond to the complaint within 10 working days of the acknowledgment at stage 1.
3. Provide a final response within 20 working days of the date of acknowledging the escalation request.
The landlord’s complaints policy is compliant with the provisions of the Code.
The resident raised his complaint on 29 June 2023, so the landlord had until 6 July 2023 to acknowledge it. It then had until 20 July 2023 to provide its stage 1 response. The landlord responded on 8 September 2023, which was 46 working days later. No explanation has been given for the landlord’s delay in providing its response.
The resident escalated his complaint on 15 September 2023, which means the landlord had until 22 September 2023 to acknowledge it, and until 20 October 2023 to provide its final response. The landlord responded on 14 November 2023, which was 37 working days later. Again, no explanation has been given for why the landlord provided a response outside of the timescales of both the Code and its own complaints policy. These delays in providing a response likely caused further frustration and distress for the resident, given the number of issues he had complained were outstanding at the time.
The landlord’s complaints policy also says that its remedies for resolving complaints include acknowledging where things have gone wrong, providing an explanation or reasons, apologising, and providing a financial remedy.
In its stage 1 response to the resident, the landlord did not adhere to its complaints policy. Instead of acknowledging the resident’s complaint points, it instead blamed the resident for not allowing its contractors access to the property. It also made allegations that the resident had been abusive to contractors and landlord staff. In addition, it offered no solution or guidance to the resident’s legitimate concerns about outstanding repairs. The response lacked empathy, and showed no understanding for the resident’s frustrations and concerns.
When the resident asked the landlord to provide proof to support the allegations it had made about its behaviour, the landlord confirmed in its final response that it was unable to do so and apologised for the accusations. It also explained that the member of staff that had provided the stage 1 response had left its employment.
It was reasonable for the landlord to explain this to the resident, and the Ombudsman is pleased to note that when a new caseworker took over the complaint, they immediately raised concerns with the landlord that the stage 1 response had been inappropriate and unfair to the resident. In its stage 2 response, it also offered the resident £250 as a gesture of goodwill, but this appears to have been to address the inappropriate nature of the stage 1 response, and not both delayed complaint responses.
In summary, the landlord failed to respond to the resident’s complaint at stage 1 and stage 2 of the process in adherence with the timescales set out in both the Code and its own complaint policy, and failed to offer compensation to recognise this.
The Ombudsman therefore finds that there was service failure by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s complaint, and it has been ordered to pay him an additional £100 in compensation, to recognise the distress caused. This is in line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance for failures which the landlord has acknowledged, but where the remedy offered does not add up to the failings found in this investigation.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, the landlord was responsible for maladministration in its handling of:
1. Repairs.
2. Damp and mould.
3. Asbestos and a leak through the shed roof.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, the landlord was responsible for service failure in its handling of a front door replacement.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, the landlord was responsible for service failure in its handling of the resident’s complaint.

Orders

The landlord must, within 28 days of the date of this determination:
1. Pay the resident a total of £1,400 in compensation. This consists of:
  1. £600 for the distress and inconvenience caused by the landlord’s handling of repairs.
  2. £400 for the landlord’s delays in addressing damp and mould.
  3. £200 for the landlord’s delay in addressing asbestos and a leak in his shed roof.
  4. £100 for the landlord’s handling of a front door replacement.
  5. £100 for the landlord’s errors in complaint handling.
2. Arrange a mould clean if it has not already done so.
3. Complete redecoration of any areas affected by damp and mould, if it has not already done so.
4. Arrange for a contractor to establish what the cause of damp at the property is, and provide the resident and this Service with a report to confirm the cause.
5. Review its record keeping process, to ensure all contractor visits are recorded appropriately.
6. Update the resident on its progress concerning the asbestos issue, and provide him timescales for when work to address the problem is likely to be carried out.
The landlord must provide evidence of compliance with the above orders to the Ombudsman.