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

Oxford City Council (202346472)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202346472

Oxford City Council

31 October 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 the landlord’s handling of:
    1. The residents reports of repairs during the defect period, including a leak which caused damp and mould.
    2. The resident’s request for larger radiators in the property.

Background

  1. The resident is a secure tenant and moved into a new build, 2–bed ground floor flat in January 2023. The landlord confirmed it did not have a record of any vulnerabilities but was made aware of a vulnerability within the household during the complaint process.
  2. The landlord’s records show the resident first made contact on 15 March 2023 asking for bigger radiators. She said they did not provide enough heat, but the landlord said it would review it once all furnishings were in the property. The resident repeatedly asked for larger radiators through to July 2024 but was told they would not be replaced. Additionally, in November 2023 the resident contacted the landlord with concerns about a roof leak, the patio doors, and the windows which she said did not open properly.
  3. On 30 December 2023 the resident submitted a complaint regarding the roof leak, the leaks around the patio door, the windows, and the radiators.
  4. The landlord responded to the complaint on 17 January 2024 when it advised all the issues had been raised as defects. It confirmed inspections had been completed, but the final one was due on 19 January 2024 when the developer (referred to as ‘C1’) would assess the work needed. The landlord confirmed the radiators would not be changed but advised the resident she could change them at her own cost. The landlord upheld the complaint due to the lack of communication from itself on how the defects would be managed, and the lack of evidence of C1 completing the defects previously reported. The landlord informed the resident it would complete an internal audit on its management of the defect process (to include training of the contact team), and confirmed C1 would contact her to arrange the repairs.
  5. The resident escalated her complaint on 20 March 2024. While it referred to the roof leak, the radiators, and the windows, it is noted the issue with the patio doors was not pursued within the escalation request. She asked the landlord for written reports on the inspections completed, confirmation of the cause of the roof leak and the plan to resolve it, for 2 radiators to be changed, and for the windows to be installed correctly or repaired.
  6. The landlord’s final complaint response (dated 18 April 2024) was sent on 22 April 2024. It confirmed the outcome of the inspections from the roof leak, windows, and radiators. It advised C1 was working on the logistics of completing the roof repairs and apologised for the delay around this. In the interim, it arranged for a surveyor to inspect the residents flat for any internal damage. The landlord upheld these aspects of the complaint. It confirmed the windows had restrictors in place which she could remove. It advised the heat calculations confirmed the radiators were sized correctly and would not be changed; however, it had relocated the thermostat and changed the valve. The landlord did not uphold the window and radiator elements of the complaint.
  7. The landlord acknowledged it could have been more proactive in its communication and that errors had occurred in the reporting of the defects. It confirmed its intention to review the management of the defect process which included the delivery of training. The landlord offered £350 compensation for the service failures.

Post completion of the complaint process

  1. The resident contacted this Service on 25 April 2024 to confirm all the issues were outstanding. She continued to ask the landlord for larger radiators, but the landlord did not change its decision. The landlord inspected the residents home, but no mould was found. On 29 May 2024, the landlord informed the resident the external leak had been resolved and the building had been cleaned. Following further reports regarding the windows, the landlord agreed to pass the issue back to C1. It is not known if this issue was resolved.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

  1. The resident has referred to the impact the concerns have had on the health of the household. Although we can consider the impact the situation has had on the resident and whether the landlord acted reasonably, we cannot determine liability for damage to health. This is a legal matter better suited to an insurance claim or court. Any compensation offer will be assessed in line with our remedies guidance. Should the resident wish to pursue these matters further, she should seek legal advice.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 42.a of the Housing Ombudsman’s Scheme (in place at the time of the complaint), the Ombudsman may not consider complaints, which in the Ombudsman’s opinion are made prior to having exhausted a member’s complaint 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. As such, this investigation will only focus on the issues included in the landlord’s final complaint response. 
  3. In accordance with paragraph 42.c of the Housing Ombudsman’s Scheme (in place at the time of the complaint), 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 6 months of the matters arising. This investigation will focus on the events from the start of the tenancy to the final complaint response date of 18 April 2024.

Repairs reported.

  1. For clarity, the Ombudsman has considered each repair in turn below.
  2. The landlord’s defect procedure confirms the landlord (through the contractor) are responsible for rectifying faults during the first 12 months after completion. It states non-urgent faults are left until the 12-month fault inspection, and any reports should be made directly to the landlord. The landlord will confirm if the defect will be passed to the contractor or if it should be raised by the resident at the 12-month inspection. The inspection will note all defects and if required, an appointment will be arranged for the contractor to rectify.

Windows not opening properly.

  1. The landlord’s repair records show the resident reported the windows on 29 November 2023. Without the evidence to confirm the landlord assessed the defect, an appointment was arranged for 27 February 2024. The landlord’s actions failed to follow the defect procedure as outlined above – this was unreasonable.
  2. Although the resident reported the windows on 29 November 2023 the end of defect (EOD) inspection was completed the day before. The landlord has not provided a copy of the inspection report to confirm if this issue was raised by the resident and if she was told what would happen next – this is a record keeping and communication failure. The landlord should maintain robust repair records to provide a clear audit trail to enhance its ability to respond to problems when they arise. It is equally important when a contractor is involved as the landlord has ultimate responsibility to ensure repairs are completed and should be able to monitor the contractor performance and progress accordingly.
  3. In its stage 1 complaint response, the landlord confirmed the window issue had been added to the defects list but would be concluded in the final inspection on 19 January 2024. There is no evidence to confirm the findings from the inspection were communicated to the resident. This was unreasonable as it left her unclear on what would happen and when.
  4. The repair notes on 27 February 2024 state the resident said an operative had told her the windows had been installed incorrectly, but further notes confirm the issue was the restrictors which limited the opening. The landlord passed the issue back to C1 – this was appropriate. On 13 March 2024 C1 told the landlord the window company (referred to as ‘C2’) had confirmed the work had been completed and “assumed” the issue was the restrictor. On 15 March 2024 the resident contacted C1 to confirm the matter was not resolved. It would have been appropriate to investigate the issue further and to verify the resident’s comments, but there is no evidence this happened. This was unreasonable and did not provide a customer-focussed solution.
  5. The resident included the problem with the windows in her complaint escalation on 20 March 2024. In the final complaint response dated 18 April 2024 the landlord said the notes of the contractor did not concur with what the resident claimed, and (with support from C1) continued to tell her the problem was the restrictors and sent the guidance on how to remove them. The landlord did not uphold this element of the complaint.
  6. On 29 May 2024, after the final complaint response, the resident continued to raise the problem with the landlord. She said operatives had told her the hinges had been installed differently to other flats on site and C1 should resolve this. The landlord took reasonable action and confirmed it would liaise with C1 as the resident said she could not open the windows wide enough to remove the restrictors. It is unclear if the issue was resolved therefore the Ombudsman is unable to assess how long it took for the matter to be resolved or if the previous responses and actions were appropriate. This is a record keeping failure and demonstrates poor communication.

Roof leak/drainage

  1. On 6 November 2023, the resident reported wet patches on the external brickwork of the building which she said was leading to spots of damp and mould. There was no evidence of any contact with the resident regarding this, and while it is understood this was an external issue, it would have been reasonable for the landlord to acknowledge receipt of the contact and confirm its intensions to investigate the issue.
  2. As a result of the EOD inspection on 28 November 2023, this issue was added to the defect list to be explored by C1 on 19 January 2024. There was no evidence of the resident receiving any feedback following the inspection, and because of this, the resident included this matter in her complaint. It was unreasonable that the resident only received feedback due to her complaint.
  3. On 21 February 2024, (after further contact from the resident), C1 confirmed the brickwork to left of the resident’s flat had damp patches down the front of the building. It advised the resident it had completed further investigations and was putting plans in place to resolve the problem found.
  4. On 12 March 2024, C1 informed the resident it was investigating the downpipe issue that week, and once the blockage was found, it would be cleared. However, on 20 March 2024, the resident escalated her concerns stating no one had contacted her and she wanted a written report into the root cause of the leak and the plan for the external and internal repairs.
  5. In the final complaint response, the landlord confirmed the cause of the leak had been identified. It said it could not provide a written report as requested but advised work had been identified to improve the drainage. The landlord informed the resident C1 was making plans to complete the work however, this included working at height so C1 was trying to arrange the work without the need to close the road – this was reasonable. The landlord apologised for the time taken and as an interim measure, it arranged for a surveyor to check the resident’s home for internal damage. This was reasonable. We note the records confirm the work was completed in May 2024 with the external clean completed on 29 May 2024.
  6. In summary, the Ombudsman finds service failure in relation to the landlord’s handling the resident’s reports of repairs during the defect period, including a leak which caused damp and mould. There was evidence of delayed repairs, ineffective record keeping which hindered the landlord’s ability to provide in-depth responses, poor communication, and a failure to follow procedure. In part, some of these failures were identified and acknowledged by the landlord who offered compensation and identified learning and additional training to prevent a recurrence.
  7. While the landlord demonstrated an awareness of the Dispute Resolution Principles of this Service in its approach, it failed to identify some additional service failures. Namely, the lack of a deeper investigation into the windows issue. Although the Ombudsman acknowledges the landlord’s offer of compensation, the steps taken to put things right, and the learning taken to help prevent a recurrence, additional compensation has been ordered to align with the remedies guidance of this Service. This is for a finding of service failure whereby the landlord’s offer does not reflect the detriment to the resident and is not quite proportionate to the failings identified. This offer includes the time, trouble and disappointment experienced by the resident.

Request for larger radiators.

  1. The landlord’s records show the resident asked for larger radiators on 15 March 2023 – she said the property was cold. The landlord visited the next day and suggested it reviewed the matter when all furnishings were in place. This was reasonable. The resident raised the issue again on 12 May 2023 and the landlord asked C1 to inspect the radiators. C1 said it visited in March 2023 and found the radiators were sized correctly. A repair was completed at the time as the radiator was not omitting enough heat. It would have been reasonable to inspect the radiators again to ensure a further defect had not developed. The findings should then have been fed back to the resident. There was no evidence this happened. This was unreasonable.
  2. On 5 June 2023 after a further request from the resident, C1 confirmed the designer and installer of the heating had visited “several times” and no issues had been found. It said the properties had been built and tested to current building standards, so the heat demand was smaller (resulting in the need for smaller radiators). It is therefore unclear why on 20 June 2023 it overturned its decision and replaced the lounge radiator with a larger one.
  3. On 15 August 2023 the resident asked for an additional radiator in the bedroom. C1 confirmed the resident had asked to keep the one it had removed in June 2023 but there was no agreement for it to be installed later. C1 confirmed there was no defect so it would not action the request. While this was a reasonable response, it highlighted inconsistent decision making and set a misleading level of expectation to the resident.
  4. The resident continued to request larger radiators and on 17 October 2023 asked for the heat calculations for the flat. Although the landlord should be able to rely on the findings of C1 and the heating designer, it made a reasonable decision to ask an energy advisor for a further opinion. The landlord and advisor visited the property on 31 October 2023 and confirmed the thermostat was on 23 degrees without the heating on. This was consistent with the recommendations of the home user guide which stated the ‘most comfortable and economical temperature would be 18 to 21 degrees.’ On recommendation, the landlord relocated the thermostat away from the new larger radiator.
  5. The resident asked the landlord to install the radiator that had been left in the property in June 2023. The landlord confirmed the radiator had been changed as a gesture of goodwill and not done to fix a fault therefore it would not be installed. This was reasonable. During the visit, the radiators were measured so the heat demand could be calculated. It would have been reasonable to do these at an earlier stage and then fed these back to the resident.
  6. The resident submitted a complaint on 30 December 2023 which included her request for larger radiators. In the stage 1 complaint response, the landlord confirmed it would not change the radiators as they were deemed suitable for the property size. It told the resident she could change them at her cost, which without the evidence to suggest a justified need for the replacement, was a reasonable alternative to finding a resolution.
  7. The resident included the matter in her complaint escalation on 20 March 2024 and asked for a written explanation confirming the heat calculations. She asked for a double panel radiator in the bedroom and a vertical one to replace the one in the lounge.
  8. In its final complaint response, the landlord confirmed no formal report had been done and it did not have a copy of the calculations, but the notes taken at the time confirmed the radiators were sized correctly. It did not uphold this aspect of the complaint and again declined the request.
  9. Following the final complaint response, the resident continued with her request. She again asked the landlord for the heat calculations which she had not received. Albeit late, the landlord sent these on 5 June 2024. On 16 June 2024, the resident told the landlord she believed they were wrong and as such asked for an upgrade. On 20 June 2024, the landlord confirmed it would not change its decision.
  10. In summary, the Ombudsman finds reasonable redress in relation to the landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for larger radiators in the property. Several inspections were conducted, no defects were identified, and the recommended temperature was being reached. The heat calculations exceeded the requirements for each room so there was no justification or obligation for the landlord to replace the radiators. While the actions and inspections were reasonable, there was service failure regarding poor communication and the delayed provision of information. The communication failures were however recognised by the landlord and contributed to the £100 compensation offered as redress in its final complaint response. This was a reasonable offer for the service failure identified.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, the Ombudsman finds service failure in relation to the landlord’s handling of the resident’s repairs reported during the defect period, including a leak which caused damp and mould.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 53.b of the Scheme, the Ombudsman finds reasonable redress with the landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for larger radiators in the property.

Orders

  1. Within 4 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord should:
    1. Write a letter of apology to the resident.
    2. Pay the resident £450 which is made up of the following:
      1. £350 offered in the final complaint response for the delays in repairs and communication issues (to be deducted if it has already paid).
      2. An additional £100 for the failures identified with the response to the window reports.
      3. The additional compensation should be paid directly to the resident and not offset against any debt that may be owed.
  2. Within 4 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord should:
    1. Contact the resident to confirm if all repairs raised in this case have been completed.
    2. Agree with the resident how it will resolve any outstanding repairs and provide a schedule of work.
    3. Confirm arrangements to post inspect any work completed to obtain final sign off.
  3. The landlord should provide this Service with evidence to confirm it has complied with the orders above within the timescale given.

Recommendation

  1. If not already in place, the landlord should consider having an alert on the repairs system to highlight new build properties. This will act as a prompt to staff before any repairs are raised on the system and will ensure the correct defect procedure is followed.