Harlow District Council (202312434)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202312434

Harlow District Council

13 February 2025

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 response to the residents reports of leaks from her wet room.
The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

The resident has a secure tenancy with the landlord which is a local authority. The tenancy commenced on 31 January 2022. The property is a 3 bedroom house. The landlord has no record of any vulnerabilities for the resident.
In early February 2022 the resident contacted the landlord to report leaks from her wet room through to her kitchen ceiling. It attended in March to regrout the tiles, carry out a repair to the floor and install a shower curtain however, the leaks continued. The leaks affected the kitchen light and heat alarm which had to be isolated.
On 12 April 2023 the resident made a stage 1 complaint. She said she had contacted the landlord to report the leak and that plumbers had attended. The leaks through to the kitchen occurred every time the shower was used. Tiles were falling off in the wet room and she had been without a kitchen light or heat alarm for 6 months. She requested that the landlord fix the leaks and damage caused to the kitchen and tiles.
The landlord provided its stage 1 complaint response on 19 April 2023, the main points being:
1. It confirmed the resident had reported the leaks in February 2022 and that it attended in March to regrout the tiles. It attended again on 16 March to carry out a repair to the floor and subsequently ordered a shower curtain.
2. It acknowledged it attended a “number of times” throughout 2022 and at the start of 2023.
3. It had made an appointment for a tiler to attend on 22 May.
4. It apologised that it did not resolve the matter sooner but that investigating the source of a leak could be “complicated.”
5. It upheld the complaint because even though it attended each appointment within time the repair took longer than “it would like.”
On 27 April 2023 the resident set out her ongoing dissatisfaction with the landlord’s response, as follows:
1. She first reported the leaks in early February 2022. The landlord attended in March to regrout some tiles but this did not resolve the issue and leaks continued every time the shower was used.
2. The landlord attended again on 16 March but did not repair the floor as it had said. However, it put sealant around the edge and ordered a new shower curtain.
3. It had attended again but the leaks continued. On one occasion the operative said there were 2 leaks he could not reach. The toilet, basin and floor would need to be taken out to fix them. However, this did not happen.
4. Her kitchen light and heat alarm were isolated when they were affected by the leak. She had been without them for 6 months and only had the use of a lamp in the kitchen.
5. 2 tiles had come away completely and others were loose which was dangerous.
6. The wet room was damp causing drain flies which was distressing for her children. She added that the kitchen walls were “destroyed.”
7. She disputed that it had attended repairs within time and felt she had not been dealt with or treated fairly.
8. The issues had caused “mental strain” and she was “finding it hard to cope.” She did not feel it was taking the problem seriously. She asked for a new bathroom or to be moved to more suitable accommodation.
On 22 May 2023 the landlord provided its stage 2 complaint response, the main points being:
1. Following its inspection of the property on 18 May it was aware there may be some issues with the ‘altro’ flooring.
2. Following the tiling appointment on 22 May it was aware that tiling alone would not resolve the issue. It therefore proposed to carry out a joint visit to the resident with repairs and her housing officer to discuss how to resolve the matter. It would be in contact “shortly” to arrange.
3. The resident should contact the landlord’s insurance company to make a claim for any damage to her personal items.
4. All direct requests for a new bathroom or accommodation would need to be addressed directly to the landlord.
5. The complaint was upheld because it had been unable to resolve the issue. It apologised for the delay in completing the repair.
The resident contacted this Service on 18 July 2023 to request that we investigate her complaint. The complaint became one we could investigate on 9 April 2024.

Events post internal complaints process

The call enquiry log shows that the retiling referred to in a works order of 21 October 2022 was completed on 2 June 2023.
A job attendance report dated 24 October 2023 noted it had been agreed it would benefit both parties if the wet room were replaced with a standard bathroom. The landlord also agreed to repair the kitchen ceiling and box off the soil pipe.
A file note dated 25 May 2024 stated that the works had been signed off.

Assessment and findings

Landlord’s obligations, policies and procedures.

The landlord’s repairs priorities, scope of repairs and timescales guidance (repairs guidance) says it will attend:
1. Emergency repairs within 24 hours.
2. Urgent repairs within 5 working days.
3. Standard repairs within 20 working days.
It also says that in the first instance residents should raise concerns directly to its repairs contractor. If the resident considers that the matter is not resolved to their satisfaction, the landlord’s complaint procedure should be used.
Its complaints policy says it will acknowledge complaints within 3 working days. It will respond to stage 1 complaints within 10 working days and to stage 2 complaints within 15 working days.
Its compensation procedure says that compensation may be considered as part of its complaints process including where it is found that it had seriously or consistently failed and/or it had taken an unreasonable amount of time to resolve the issues. Compensation will not be paid where the matter is being considered as an insurance matter, which will be dealt with by its insurance team.

The complaint is about the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of leaks from her wet room.

On 11 February 2022 the landlord raised a works order to regrout the tiles in the wet room following a telephone call from the resident who reported gaps and leaks through the ceiling below.
The call enquiry log says the work was completed on 2 March 2022 in line with the timescales set out in its repairs guidance. However, there are no details of what work was undertaken which is a record keeping failure.
The landlord’s call enquiry log dated 16 March 2022 relates to a works order to investigate a leak through the ceiling. The landlord carried out a repair to the floor and ordered a new shower curtain to “trap all the water within the shower tray.” The shower curtain was fitted on 28 March.
The fitting of a new shower curtain did not resolve the issue and on 17 June 2022 the resident called the landlord to report that there was water in the kitchen light due to the leak. The job enquiry log shows it attended that day, in line with its repairs policy to make safe the heat alarm and light.
A call enquiry log was created on 11 April 2023 to install a temporary heat alarm and light in the kitchen due to a leak. This was completed on the same day. In her stage 1 complaint of 12 April the resident said she had been without them for 7 months. According to the landlord’s evidence she had in fact been without either for 10 months which was inappropriate, particularly due to the associated risks to the resident and her children.
It also raised a works order to investigate the leak through the ceiling on the same day. Its records shows that it attempted to cold call by visiting the resident on 17, 20 and 21 June 2022 but could not gain access. A photograph dated 21 June shows that it left a “sorry we missed you card” through the letterbox. However, there is no evidence that it attempted to email or phone the resident to make an appointment which would have been appropriate.
There was then a gap of almost 4 months before further action was taken. It is acknowledged that the landlord left calling cards. However, it would have been appropriate to expedite resolution of the issue for the benefit of the resident and for the landlord who would reasonably want to maintain its asset. However, there is no evidence that it attempted to contact the resident which was unreasonable.
An entry on the landlord’s repairs records dated 10 October 2022 says it had identified a “small leak” from the waste for the basin and the stack connection. The toilet would need to be removed and the stack and connection accessed through the tile and boarded wall behind it. It would then need to return with a tiler to make good. Its records show it was unable to gain access on 11 October. A ‘sorry we missed you card’ was left on 28 November.
The reasons for the file note of 10 October are unclear which is a record keeping failure. It is not clear if the landlord had inspected again and if so when. It is also not clear whether the visit on 11 October and 28 November were cold calls or by appointment as arranged with the resident.
The landlord arranged for a plumber to attend on 21 October 2022. They sealed areas of the tiling which were “weak.” The call enquiry log noted that the room required retiling as “a lot” of the tiles were loose and coming away from the wall.
A call enquiry log shows that on 29 November 2022 the landlord attended to remove the grout and cut access into the tiled area to access the shower waste. The ‘hep elbow’ on the pump waste was repaired. It made a frame on the duct work to “re fix cut out back onto sealed around cut out on tiles.” This was 36 working days after the works were identified on 10 October. This was 16 working days outside of the landlord’s repair response time for standard repairs which was inappropriate.
A call enquiry log dated 20 February 2023 refers to a works order to return with a tiler. It also requested they trace and remedy the leak from the wet room through to the kitchen and check the damage caused. The outcome was that the altro flooring needed to be replaced and then tiling work carried out.
The order for the tiler to return was raised 56 working days after the tiles had been cut as part of the investigation into the leak. This was 36 working days outside of the landlord’s timescales for standard repairs. Furthermore, it had been over a year since the resident first reported the leak and the issue had not been resolved.
An internal email dated 10 April 2023 referred to an appointment arranged for 22 May for a plumber and tiler to attend. It said that once the repairs had been carried out it would assess if the water ingress had stopped and then decide if the floor needed to be replaced. The landlord’s call enquiry log said that the job was closed due to no access on 22 May. There is no evidence of the landlord arranging the appointment with the resident, such as an email, letter or file note of a phone call.
The landlord took steps to try to investigate the leak. However, there were avoidable delays which caused distress and inconvenience to the resident. Furthermore the landlord failed to resolve the substantive issue.
The landlord’s stage 2 complaint response of 22 May 2023 offered to meet with the resident to discuss how it might resolve the issue which was appropriate in the circumstances. The evidence shows that an agreement was reached and the wet room replaced by a bathroom in the months that followed the landlord’s stage 2 response.
The Ombudsman would expect a landlord to keep a robust record of contacts and repairs, yet the evidence has not been comprehensive in this case. It is vital that landlords keep clear, accurate and easily accessible records to provide an audit trail. If we investigate a complaint, we will ask for the landlord’s records. If there is disputed evidence and no audit trail, we may not be able to conclude that an action took place or that the landlord followed its own policies and procedures.
The failures identified in this report amount to maladministration because they had an adverse effect on the resident. The landlord is ordered to pay the resident £400 which is consistent with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance where there was no permanent impact.

The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

The landlord’s stage 1 and stage 2 complaint responses were appropriately issued within time. However, they were issued by the landlord’s repairs contractor and not the landlord itself. This is not in line with its repairs guidance or its complaints policy which make no provision for the contractor to provide complaint responses. That it did not follow its policies was inappropriate because the resident could not be confident that she had benefitted from the landlord’s own complaint handling process, including consideration of financial redress.
The landlord’s compensation procedure says that compensation may be considered as part of its complaints process including where it is found that it had seriously or consistently failed and/or it had taken an unreasonable amount of time to resolve the issues.
Despite upholding the complaint at both stages of the process the repairs contractor failed to consider how it might put things right for the resident, such as providing financial redress for the distress and inconvenience caused. This was a failure.
There was maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling because the failures had an adverse effect on the resident. The landlord has been ordered to pay the resident £150 which is in line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance where there was no permanent impact.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of leaks from her wet room.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Orders

Within 4 weeks of the date of the determination the landlord is ordered to:
1. Write to the resident to apologise for the failures identified in this report.
2. Pay the resident £550 compensation comprised of:
  1. £400 for the distress and inconvenience caused by its failures in its response to the resident’s reports of leaks from her wet room.
  2. £150 for the distress caused by its complaint handling failures.
The landlord should provide evidence of the above orders to the Ombudsman also within 4 weeks.
Within 6 weeks of the date of the determination the landlord should review the failures identified in this report to set out what went wrong and what it will do differently. A copy of the review should be provided to the resident and the Ombudsman, also within 6 weeks.