London Borough of Hounslow (202319650)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202319650

London Borough of Hounslow

26 March 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 handling of the resident’s:
1. Concerns about the condition of the water tank in her loft.
2. Request to be sent an inspection report in relation to her disrepair case.
3. Concerns about the temperature of her kitchen and bedroom.
We have also investigated the landlord’s record keeping.

Background

The resident holds an assured tenancy with the landlord and the property is a 3-bedroom house.
The resident raised a stage 1 complaint with the landlord on 27 March 2023 about the following matters:
1. She was dissatisfied that the water tank in her loft was uncovered and had concerns about the water being contaminated.
2. She was unhappy that the landlord had not sent her an inspection report which she had requested as part of her disrepair claim.
3. There had been delays in the landlord investigating a suspected leak under her waste pipe in the kitchen.
4. She was dissatisfied that her son’s bedroom was extremely cold and there was a frequent build-up of condensation.
In the landlord’s stage 1 response of 9 May 2023 it said:
1. It was sorry for the delayed complaint response.
2. It inspected the water tank on 24 March 2023 and found it to be clean with no further works required. It said the resident should only drink out of the kitchen cold water tap which was supplied by the mains water.
3. Any request in relation to the resident’s disrepair case would need to come from her solicitor.
4. A plumber had carried out an inspection on 4 April 2023 and found no leak in the kitchen. Instead, the moisture in the kitchen was caused by condensation build up after cooking.
5. It would instruct an inspector to assess the bedroom.
The resident escalated the complaint on 5 June 2023. She suspected the condensation under the kitchen sink could be caused by the cold temperature of the room and requested further investigation. She remained unhappy that the water tank was left uncovered for a long period of time and thought it was unsanitary. She said her solicitors had not received the disrepair report yet and asked for her son’s bedroom to be inspected.
In the landlord’s stage 2 response of 13 July 2023 it said:
1. It had inspected the son’s bedroom on 12 July 2023 and it would reposition the radiator beneath the window.
2. A surveyor would attend to assess the temperature in the kitchen on 18 July 2023.
3. The water tank lid was made of wood covered in plastic and was adequate to keep the water free from debris and rodents. It would complete a further inspection given the resident’s ongoing concern.
4. The disrepair report which the resident requested was from the landlord’s own inspection for works which had already been carried out.
5. It did not uphold the complaint.
The resident referred her complaint to us on 5 September 2023, saying the landlord had not taken accountability for the repairs or effectively communicated with her. To resolve the complaint, she is seeking compensation and for the landlord to learn from the complaint to improve its services.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

The resident’s stage 1 complaint included concerns about delays in the landlord responding to her requests for the loft to be cleared and insulation installed. These matters were not pursued in the stage 2 complaint. As a result, they have not exhausted the landlord’s complaints process and are not, therefore, considered as part of this investigation.

The resident’s concerns about the condition of the water tank in her loft

The landlord’s repairs policy sets out 4 different types of repair priorities. Each has a maximum target time limit to complete the job as follows:
1. Emergency repairs (4 hours to make safe and prevent danger)
2. Priority 1 (within 24 hours)
3. Priority 2, urgent repairs (within 3 working days)
4. Priority 3, routine repairs (20 working days)
The resident initially reported concerns about the condition of the water tank on 13 March 2023. She informed the landlord that the lid on top of the tank was unsecure, and she was worried about debris contaminating the water. The landlord set up a job, but records suggest there were no appointments available.
The resident followed up the matter on 24 March 2023 and an appointment was booked for the same day. In accordance with the repairs policy, this repair would have been a priority 3 repair (causes an inconvenience but is not urgent or poses an immediate risk to the resident). The landlord responded to the report on the 9th working day after the resident’s report, which was timely and in line with its repairs policy.
However, the landlord failed to maintain a detailed record of its visit. The contractor marked the job as complete on the day it attended but did not record any further details. This was unsatisfactory. As a result, there is no evidence to substantiate the landlord’s claim in its complaint response that the water tank appeared clean, and no further works were required.
Having said this, it was appropriate that the landlord advised the resident that the hot water tap, and bathroom water was supplied from the tank. It recommended for the resident to only drink from the cold water tap in the kitchen which was supplied by the mains water.
The resident was dissatisfied with the condition of the lid on the water tank. She reported that, when the plumber attended, he placed a piece of wood on top of the tank as a proposed resolution which she did not feel was satisfactory. It was appropriate that when the landlord investigated the complaint, it completed further enquiries into the condition of the lid. It asked colleagues whether a replacement or clean of the lid might be required but no response was provided. The landlord informed the resident that the lid was adequate to keep the water free from debris and rodents. However, there are no records to substantiate where this information came from. As a result, we are unable to conclude that it was a fair response.
Due to the resident’s ongoing concerns, the landlord said in its final complaint response that it would arrange a further visit for a supervisor to inspect the tank and lid. This was an appropriate measure to reassure the resident. However, records do not confirm that a subsequent visit was carried out. The landlord failed to keep its commitment as per its stage 2 response which is likely to have caused frustration to the resident. Although the matter was not considered urgent, the landlord still had an obligation to respond to her concerns.
The landlord informed us on 19 June 2024 that the wood placed on top of the water tank was not a permanent solution and it would arrange an alternative solution. This contradicts the information provided in its final response where it said the lid was adequate. The resident has since advised us that the landlord replaced the water tank and lid last year.
It is clear that there was a lack of accountability in the landlord’s handling of this matter. Records suggest that the resident’s concerns were not sufficiently investigated, and it took the landlord over a year to eventually replace the water tank and lid. The matter was exacerbated by the lack of updates to the resident.
We acknowledge that the landlord initially attended to inspect the tank in a timely manner and its advice for the resident to only drink water from the kitchen cold tap was appropriate given her concerns. Additionally, we have not seen records to confirm that the resident re-reported concerns about the water tank after the landlord’s final response.
Overall, we have identified maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about the condition of the water tank. It is ordered to compensate her £200 for the distress and inconvenience caused by its failure to sufficiently investigate her concerns, update her on its intended course of action, and adhere to its repair timescales. The compensation is in line with our remedies guidance where there has been a failure which adversely affected the resident, and the landlord failed to acknowledge its failings.

The resident’s request to be sent an inspection report about her disrepair case

On 28 February 2023 the resident asked the landlord to send her a report from a visit which took place on 10 January 2023. In later correspondence it was confirmed that this report was a post–inspection completed by the landlord following works carried out for the resident’s disrepair case. It was reasonable that the landlord advised the resident in its complaint response that, due to the ongoing disrepair case and involvement of lawyers, the request should be made through the resident’s solicitor.
The resident said that her solicitor had requested the report from the landlord’s legal team and it had not been provided. It is not our role to determine whether the inspection report should have been provided to the resident as this would be a matter for the legal representatives to decide. Rather, it is our role to assess whether the landlord’s response to the resident’s request through the complaints process was fair and reasonable.
At stage 2, the landlord informed the resident that a further inspection of the property had taken place in June 2023 and the recommended works would start soon. It was appropriate that the landlord updated the resident where it could on the disrepair case. It advised that it would update the legal representatives of the dates when works would commence.
Ultimately, the landlord’s response to the resident’s request for the report was fair. This matter was being handled by the legal representatives as there was an active disrepair case at the time of the complaint. As such, there was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of this matter.

The resident’s concerns about the cold temperature of her kitchen and bedroom

The resident reported her son’s bedroom being cold in her stage 1 complaint. She said that the walls had condensation on them even when the windows were open. In response to these concerns, the landlord advised that it would arrange an inspection of the bedroom.
Given the concerns the resident had raised, including water running down the walls, we consider that the landlord should have recorded the matter as a priority 1 repair. However, records show that the landlord took no immediate action to raise a work order, and it failed to prioritise investigating the matter. This was unsatisfactory.
Records suggest that the resident initially reported cold kitchen temperatures in her escalation request. She said the kitchen was extremely cold, and she felt this could have caused the condensation build up under her sink. In response to her concerns about the kitchen and bedroom, the landlord sent internal enquiries to the relevant landlord department at the start of July 2023 and asked whether the matter was something they could remedy.
Landlord staff responded that a surveyor would need to investigate before they could answer the questions. Records show that the complaints team received few updates about this issue and chased staff on occasions for updates. A clear plan was not set up by the landlord to investigate the resident’s concerns and there was a lack of accountability to resolve the matters.
The landlord said the resident refused an appointment to investigate the cold temperatures on 9 May 2023 due to her ongoing disrepair case. Whilst this might have happened, there are no records to show that an appointment was offered on this date or refused by the resident.
The resident advised us that a surveyor attended on 12 July 2023 and recommended that the bedroom radiator required repositioning. While it was appropriate for the landlord to investigate her concerns in this way, no associated repair was raised until 3 months later. This was an unacceptable and unexplained period of delay.
An inspection of the kitchen was arranged for 18 July 2023. This was appropriate to further investigate the concerns but it should have been arranged sooner. It was booked for 6 weeks after the resident’s initial report and no updates were provided to her during this time until she received the final complaint response. The landlord’s delays and lack of communication with the resident about her concerns were unsatisfactory.
The resident informed the landlord that she was unable to make the appointment on 18 July 2023 and it was rebooked for 24 July 2023, which was also cancelled by the resident. These delays were outside of the landlord’s control. It was appropriate that the landlord offered alternative appointments when the resident advised she was unable to make the offered timeslots.
Landlord records do not confirm that any further actions were taken by it between the end of July 2023 and 10 October 2023 when a radiator was fitted in the kitchen, and the bedroom radiator was repositioned. There were no records maintained to support that a surveyor attended to inspect the resident’s kitchen. Therefore, although fitting a new radiator in the kitchen and repositioning the bedroom radiator may have been a suitable remedy for the reported issues, there are no records to corroborate that this was a recommended action. The landlord should have kept the resident updated on the steps it intended to take and maintained clear records of any visits which were completed, including any recommendations made.
Overall, the landlord’s response fell short. It identified that a survey was required to establish a suitable remedy for the cold temperatures but failed to evidence that it adhered to the recommendations. Additionally, it did not provide updates to the resident which left her unclear on how it was handling the matter. We note that the landlord ultimately installed and repositioned the radiators, but this was actioned significantly outside of any of its repair timescales.
The resident informed us that the cold temperatures in the kitchen and bedroom improved after the landlord upgraded the radiators and the issues have not been reported as ongoing. Nonetheless, there were failings in this case between March and October 2023. To put things right, the landlord is ordered to compensate the resident £350. This is to account for the lack of communication about her concerns and its delays to complete repairs to address the cold temperatures. Additionally, it should complete a review of this case to identify what caused the delayed repairs and poor communication. Following this, it should take steps to prevent a recurrence of the issues experienced in this case.

The landlord’s record keeping

As part of this investigation, the landlord was requested to provide relevant information that would reasonably be recorded and retained by it. The documentation provided was limited. For example, the repair logs lacked detail and limited communication logs were provided. As such, we were unable to corroborate actions and communications which the landlord said it made.
Poor record keeping has been a consistent theme throughout the landlord’s handling of this case. Clear record-keeping is a core function of a housing service, not only so that a landlord can provide information to us when requested, but also because this assists the landlord in fulfilling its repairing obligations to residents.
Our Spotlight report on knowledge and information management says that, “failings to create and record information accurately results in landlords not taking appropriate and timely action, missing opportunities to identify that actions were wrong or inadequate, and contributing to inadequate communication and redress.” These failings were evident in this case. Therefore, a finding of maladministration is deemed appropriate.
To put things right, the landlord is ordered to review its existing databases to ensure it can capture required information. It should complete this review and provide us with a copy of the findings.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme there was:
1. Maladministration in the landlord’s:
  1. Handling of the resident’s concerns about the condition of the water tank.
  2. Handling of the resident’s concerns about the temperature of her kitchen and bedroom.
  3. Record keeping.
2. No maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s request to be sent an inspection report in relation to her disrepair case.

Orders

Within 4 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord is ordered to provide evidence that it has:
1. Paid the resident £550 compensation, as follows:
  1. £200 for the distress and inconvenience caused by its failure to sufficiently investigate the resident’s concerns about the condition of the water tank, update her on its intended course of action, and adhere to its repair timescales.
  2. £350 for the inconvenience caused to the resident by its lack of communication and delays to respond to her reports of the kitchen being cold.
2. Completed a review of this case to identify what caused the failings in its handling of the repairs and poor communication. Following this, it should take steps to ensure there is not a recurrence of the issues experienced in this case. It should share its findings with us.
3. Reviewed its existing databases to ensure it can capture required information. It should complete this review and provide us with a copy of the findings.