London Borough of Havering Council (202327772)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202327772

Havering Council

08 April 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

1. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s:
   1. Responsive repairs.
   2. Associated complaint.

Background

2. The resident has a secure tenancy with the landlord which started in November 2019. The property is a one-bedroom flat which the resident occupies with her daughter. The resident said that her daughter has asthma. The landlord has no record of any vulnerabilities for the household.
3. On 15 December 2022 the resident contacted the landlord’s out of hours service to report there was no hot water supply to the property. The landlord logged an emergency repair and said it would attend on the same date. On 18 December 2022 the resident reported a leak from her kitchen unit. The landlord logged this as an emergency repair and said it would attend on the same date.
4. On 19 December 2022 the resident complained to the landlord that it had not attended to complete the repairs and she still had no hot water. She also said the leak had caused flooding in her kitchen, living room, bathroom, and hallway. She wanted the landlord to move her because her 4-year-old daughter had asthma and she was concerned of how the dampness caused by the leak would affect her.
5. On 16 February 2023 the resident contacted the landlord to chase the response to her complaint. She informed the landlord that she would like to escalate her complaint to stage 2.
6. On 17 February 2023 the landlord sent its stage 1 response. It said its operative had attended on 15 December 2022 and completed all works. It had left the resident with fully functioning taps with no leaks. It said it had attended on 18 December 2022 but was unable to gain access. It had not identified any service failures and was satisfied it had completed all required works in line with its repair policy and timescales.
7. The landlord sent its stage 2 response on 23 October 2023. It again said it had not found any service failures in relation to the time taken to complete the repair. With regards to the resident’s request for rehousing, it stated that because it had completed the repairs on 22 December 2022 there was no longer a need for the resident to be moved. It enclosed a link for the resident to apply for housing, if she still wanted to move. It acknowledged it had not responded to the resident’s request for rehousing or fully explained its reasons for not upholding the resident’s complaint at stage 1. It offered a goodwill gesture of £20 in relation to the flooding which had occurred in the resident’s home.
8. In communication with this service the resident maintained that the landlord’s contractor did not attend her property on 15 December 2022. The resident believed that if the landlord had attended on 15 December 2022 the leak would not have happened. She said she had felt overwhelmed when the leak occurred. She also said that the landlord had not contacted her after the leak to see if she required any support. As an outcome she would like the landlord to accept that there had been failures in its handling of the repairs. She also said she would like compensation for the distress and inconvenience caused due to not having hot water for a week.

Assessment and findings

Responsive repairs

9. The resident has complained about the landlord’s handling of responsive repairs including:
   1. no hot water throughout the property
   2. a leak in the kitchen
10. We have considered the landlord’s handling of these issues (below) separately for clarity.

No hot water

11. The landlord’s repair policy states it is responsible for maintenance and repair of water pipes. The policy states the landlord considered reports of no hot water between 31 October and 3 May and a leaking water pipe as emergency repairs. It considered partial loss of water as an urgent repair. The landlord says it will respond to emergency repairs within 4 hours and urgent repairs within 3 working days.
12. It was reasonable that the landlord logged the resident’s report of no hot water on 15 December 2022 as an emergency repair. The landlord’s repair records show that the operative attended on the same night and successfully completed the works. The landlord said that the resident had signed the job sheet to confirm this. The resident disputed this and said that the operative did not attend.
13. We have compared the customer signature on the job sheet with the signature on the resident’s tenancy agreement. They do not match. We can also see from the job sheet that the appointment only lasted 2 minutes which did not give enough time for an attendance or repairs to take place. Further, the job sheet said that follow-on works were needed. The landlord did not raise any follow-on works and incorrectly marked the job completed. The resident called the landlord several times the following day regarding her repair. The landlord logged a new job on 16 December 2022 but then closed it as a duplicate.
14. Based on this, it is reasonable to conclude that the operative did not attend the resident’s property on 15 December 2022. Even if we accepted that the landlord had attended the property, it did not fix the problem and it did not schedule any follow-up works.
15. The landlord should have attended within 4 hours on 15 December 2022. It completed the repair to reinstate the resident’s hot water on 22 December 2022. This meant that the resident was without hot water in the winter months for a total of 8 days. This was not appropriate because it was not consistent with the landlord’s policy and repair timescales.
16. In accordance with the Ombudsman’s Spotlight Report on Repairs, if a landlord contracts out its repairs service, the obligation to repair remains with the landlord and not the contractor. Landlords need to ensure that they have adequate oversight of their outsourced services. Landlords should periodically review complaints made and share their outcome with contractors. We have therefore made an order below that the landlord complete a review of this case and share its findings with its contractor to ensure this does not happen again.

Leak

17. On 18 December 2022 the resident reported a leak from her kitchen sink unit. The landlord said it attended on the same date but was unable to gain access. The resident disputed this and said no one attended. It is interesting to note that even when the landlord did not gain access to the property its records showed the work as completed.
18. The landlord has provided a time and date stamped photograph of the resident’s front door, taken by its contractor at 2.46pm on 18 December 2022. The resident has confirmed this was her front door.
19. The landlord’s repair policy states that it will make reasonable attempts to let the resident know it has arrived and will leave a calling card if residents are not in or fail to answer the door. The operative did not leave a calling card on this occasion, which was a failure. The landlord acknowledged this in its complaint response. It apologised and said that it had advised operatives to leave calling cards in the event of missed appointments in the future. It is unclear whether the contractor made any other reasonable attempts to contact the resident when it was at the property. However, we are satisfied from the evidence that the landlord attended the appointment as arranged.
20. The landlord returned on 19 December 2022. Following this it raised an urgent repair, with a 3-day timescale. The landlord’s repair records show that it completed this repair on 22 December 2022. This was appropriate because it was consistent with the landlord’s repair policy.
21. As outlined above, the resident believed that the landlord’s failure to attend on 15 December 2022 resulted in the leak in her kitchen. However, there is no evidence on which we could be satisfied that the leak would not have occurred if the landlord had attended on 15 December 2022.
22. It is understandable the resident was concerned about the dampness in her property caused by the leak and how it might impact her daughter’s health.
23. The landlord’s repair policy states that the nature of support it provides to vulnerable residents will depend upon the level of vulnerability and the household circumstances. In this case, the resident had informed the landlord that the leak had caused flooding throughout her flat. She was concerned about the impact the dampness would have on her daughter, due to her asthma. The landlord failed to evidence or explore options to mitigate the impact on the resident and her daughter. An example of this would have been to provide dehumidifiers to address the moisture while the property was drying out. There is no evidence that the landlord considered the household vulnerabilities in this case which was a failure.

Summary and conclusions

24. In summary, the landlord:
    1. failed to attend the out of hours appointment on 15 December 2022
    2. appropriately attended to the leak within its repair timescales
    3. failed to consider if there was anything it could do to mitigate the impact of the dampness in the property
25. The Ombudsman considers the failures identified in this report to amount to maladministration. This is because, although there was no permanent impact, the failures adversely affected the resident.
26. The Ombudsman’s role is to assess whether the redress offered by the landlord put things right and resolved the resident’s complaint satisfactorily in the circumstances. In investigating this, we consider whether the landlord’s offer of redress was in line with the Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles: be fair, put things right and learn from outcomes.
27. The landlord showed its attempt to put things right by completing the repair and by offering the resident compensation of £20 in relation to the flooding which had occurred at her property. It provided the resident with a link to make an application for rehousing, if she still wished to move.
28. It failed to recognise any learning in its complaint responses. We have therefore made an order below for this.
29. However, the resident was without hot water for a total of 8 days. The landlord accepted this had caused inconvenience to the resident. It is the Ombudsman’s opinion that this did not sufficiently recognise the distress and inconvenience caused, especially considering the resident had a young daughter and it was during the winter months. It would have also been appropriate for the landlord to acknowledge the resident’s concerns in relation to her daughter’s health. It is fair that the landlord pay the resident compensation to reflect the distress and inconvenience caused.
30. Having considered the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance, which is available online, a fairer level of compensation would be £200. This appropriately recognises the distress and inconvenience caused by the failures in this case. 

Complaint handling

31. The landlord’s complaint policy, at the time of the resident’s complaint, said it would acknowledge all complaints within 3 working days. It would provide a stage 1 response within 10 working days and a stage 2 response within 25 working days.
32. Under the Complaint Handling Code (the Code) (2022), landlords must ensure they:
    1. acknowledge complaints and escalations within 5 working days
    2. respond to a complaint at stage 1 within 10 working days
    3. respond to a complaint at stage 2 within 20 working days
33. The resident made her initial complaint on 19 December 2022. There is no evidence that the landlord acknowledged the complaint and it provided its stage 1 response on 17 February 2023, which was 42 working days later.
34. The resident escalated her complaint on 16 February 2023. There is no evidence that the landlord acknowledged the escalation and it provided its stage 2 response on 10 October 2023, which was 174 working days later.
35. In its complaint handling the landlord apologised for the delays at both stages of the resident’s complaint. At stage 2 it said the delay was due to lack of resources and high volume of complaints and it had explained this to the resident on several occasions. However, there is no evidence to show the landlord kept the resident updated during the delay, which was a failure.
36. In summary, the landlord:
    1. failed to acknowledge the resident’s complaint at both stages
    2. delayed in providing a response at both stages
    3. did not address all the issues included in the complaint at stage 1
37. The Ombudsman considers these failures to amount to maladministration.
38. The landlord acknowledged failings at stage 2 which included not providing a detailed response to the resident’s complaint and not responding to the resident’s request for rehousing at stage 1.
39. This did not, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, recognise the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident. As set out, it took approximately 10 months for the resident’s complaint to complete the landlord’s complaint procedure. This delayed the resident in being able to bring the matter to this Service for an independent investigation. The landlord’s actions were not appropriate as it was not consistent with the landlord’s policy and the Code. Based on the delay and the impact this had on the resident, and in accordance with the Ombudsman’s Remedies Guidance, a fair level of compensation would be £150.

Determination

40. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the responsive repairs.
41. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s complaint.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

42. The landlord must, within 28 calendar days of the date of this determination:
    1. Provide the resident with a full written apology for the errors shown in this report. The apology must come from a manager.
    2. Carry out a full review of this case to identify what went wrong and what learning it can take. The landlord must share the review with its contractor and this Service.
    3. Pay the resident compensation of £350 which is made up of:
       1. £200 in recognition of the distress and inconvenience caused by the landlord’s handling of the responsive repairs.
       2. £150 in recognition of the distress and inconvenience caused by the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.
43. This award replaces any offer made to date by the landlord through its internal complaints process. The landlord can offset against this sum any payments already made to the resident. All payments must be paid directly to the resident and not credited to the rent account unless otherwise agreed by the resident.
44. The landlord must provide us with evidence of how it has complied with the above orders within 28 days of the date of this determination.

Recommendations

45. We recommend the landlord update its systems to reflect the household vulnerabilities.