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

Tower Hamlets Community Housing (202401189)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202401189

Tower Hamlets Community Housing

18 November 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:
    1. Response to the resident’s report of mice.
    2. Response to the resident’s report of repairs to the property and communal area and requests for information relating to the repairs.
    3. Complaint handling.

Background

  1. The resident is an assured tenant and has lived in the second floor flat since 2016. The landlord said there are no vulnerabilities recorded for the resident.
  2. The landlord’s repair records show the resident reported several repairs between May and October 2023. These included a window leak in his own property, a leak in the communal area, a mice infestation, and a smell in his bathroom. The landlord has evidenced attempts to resolve the issues, however the resident remained dissatisfied with the action taken.
  3. The resident raised a formal complaint on 15 January 2024 about the ongoing issues referred to above.
  4. The landlord responded to the complaint on 1 February 2024. It confirmed the communal leak had been investigated and no leak was found but committed to providing a further update by 6 February 2024. It referred to a previous complaint regarding the mice infestation but said it would review the issue and provide an update by 7 February 2024. The landlord confirmed the windows had been inspected, but an ineffective handover had led to a lack of progress – a new appointment was made. Finally, in respect of the bathroom odour, it confirmed the action taken and said it would provide a timeline for the repairs by 8 February 2024. The landlord apologised for the delays in repairs and offered £150 compensation.
  5. The resident escalated the complaint on 20 February 2024 in which he said he had not received the updates promised in stage 1. He confirmed the communal leak was ongoing and disputed the diagnosis regarding his windows after an inspection on 12 February 2024. Although not included in the initial complaint, the resident raised the lack of action or update in relation to his boiler which he said had been deemed “risky” following the last annual gas service.
  6. The landlord provided its final complaint response on 12 April 2024 in which it apologised for not providing the information agreed in the stage 1 response. It confirmed its findings regarding the reports of mice and said the windows were operating as expected so no further action was needed. In terms of the communal leak, it confirmed it was not from the vent and a new contractor had been approved who would contact the resident directly to discuss the matter further.
  7. The landlord apologised for the delay in work to bathroom. It cited an issue with souring materials, highlighted several attempts of contact with the resident to arrange the repairs and confirmed a new appointment date. Finally, the landlord highlighted previous visits to the property in 2023 and 2024 to remedy the issue with the boiler and asked the resident to confirm his availability. The landlord increased the compensation to £450 for the delays and errors in completing the repairs, and £50 for the late complaint response.

Post completion of the complaint process

  1. On 9 September 2024 the resident informed this Service the mice had not been seen for some time, nor had the communal leak. He said the boiler had not been replaced, his flat windows were still leaking, and the bathroom repairs were still outstanding. While there is evidence of communication between the landlord and the resident, it is not known if the outstanding repairs have been resolved. In terms of the boiler, the landlord has confirmed this has not yet been replaced. It has evidenced several attempts to arrange this, however it has stated the resident is refusing as he believes the new boiler is a downgrade from the current one.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

  1. The resident has referred to the impact the situation has had on his health. 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. These are legal matters 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, he should seek legal advice.

Reports of mice

  1. The landlord’s repairs policy confirms the landlord is responsible for rat infestations, windows, waste disposal services. Its website states it will attend emergency repairs within 4 hours to make safe and return to complete a permanent repair within 2 working days. Non-urgent repairs will be made with the resident at a time that is suitable but will depend on the nature of the repair, availability of parts and team schedules.
  2. The landlord has demonstrated the inspections, proofing work and communication with the resident from September 2023 through to January 2024 when the resident submitted a further complaint. The actions were timely, appropriate, and followed the guidance of this Service.
  3. In the stage 1 complaint response (1 February 2024) the landlord confirmed it had previously investigated a mice infestation complaint in September 2023. It confirmed it was satisfied the contractor (C1) had done everything at the time to eradicate the problem. In terms of the latest reports of mice, it confirmed the visits and actions that had been conducted to try and resolve the issue.
  4. The landlord confirmed it would obtain copies of the inspections carried out by C1 and would provide the resident with an update by 7 February 2024 along with the proposed actions moving forward. It was therefore unreasonable that the landlord did not provide the update as specified. This is a communication failure and likely to have added to the resident’s frustration and contributed to the escalation of the complaint.
  5. After the complaint response, the inspections continued, as did baiting and proofing work to the loft space which included the clearance and cleaning of the area. In the landlord’s final complaint response (12 April 2024), it confirmed it was satisfied the appropriate action had been taken and there was no evidence of mice in the loft space. The inspection reports were sent to the resident with the final complaint response.
  6. In contact with this Service in September 2024, the resident confirmed the mice had not been seen for some time. It is therefore assumed that this issue has been resolved.
  7. In summary, the Ombudsman finds no maladministration with the landlord’s response to the resident’s report of mice. It is acknowledged an infestation can be distressing and inconvenient for a resident, but the landlord’s evidence demonstrated the landlord (and C1) responded appropriately to reports of the mice when made and that appropriate action was taken within a reasonable timeframe.

Repairs

  1. For clarity, the Ombudsman will address each repair in turn.

Leak from flat windows

  1. The repair records show a report was received on 22 May 2023 for the bay window letting water in. The landlord said several attempts of access were made before the repair was cancelled. There is no evidence of the attempts made to contact the resident, which is a record keeping failure. A further repair was raised on 16 August 2023 however this was also cancelled with the notes indicating no access.
  2. There is no evidence of any further contact from the resident until he included the issue in his complaint on 15 January 2024. He said the windows leaked when it rained, and the contractor (C2) never turned up. He told the landlord the property was not watertight.
  3. In response to the complaint, the landlord identified a service failure in the handover process which had delayed progress from August 2023. It was appropriate that the landlord recognised its failing here, and also offered the resident compensation as a remedy for the impact this failing had. It asked a different contractor (C3) to attend on 9 February 2024 who confirmed there were no issues with the windows other than the expected condensation experienced in winter months. The landlord reasonably relied on the findings of its qualified contractor and therefore informed the resident on 13 February 2024 that no work was required to the windows. While this was reasonable, the diagnosis was disputed by the resident within his complaint escalation.
  4. There is no evidence of any further reports or investigations in connection with the window leak and in its final complaint response, the landlord confirmed its position from stage 1. It advised the resident there was no further remedy as the windows were operating as expected and asked the resident to share any additional evidence to support further investigation. This was reasonable.

Leak from communal area

  1. The landlord’s records indicate this issue was raised on 29 June 2023. The landlord states the contractor (C4) attended the same day, but there is no evidence of the inspection, outcome or any follow up work. This is a record keeping failure. The Ombudsman expects the landlord to maintain clear and robust repair records. This will allow an audit trail and ensure it can identify and respond to issues when they arise, particularly when a contractor is involved. Further, although this was an issue with the communal area, there is no evidence of the landlord providing the resident with an update. This is a communication failure and is likely to have contributed to his frustration.
  2. The leak was reported again on 20 October 2023 and C4 attended the same day. The notes indicate C4 believed the leak, at the time, was coming from a door that had been left open. Follow on work was arranged to resolve this and was completed the following day. While this was reasonable action to take at the time, due to further reports of the continuing issue, it would suggest the initial diagnosis was inaccurate.
  3. After a report on 26 October 2023 C4 attended on 1 November 2023 and suspected the ventilation pipe in the loft was leaking. A ventilation specialist (C5) inspected the area on 14 November 2023, however there is no evidence of what was found at the time. This is a record keeping failure.
  4. In the landlord’s stage 1 complaint response it confirmed the inspections conducted, including the most recent findings from C4 who attended on 5 January 2024 and reported no leak was identified, and the area was dry. It advised it could not provide an update on the ventilation pipe and committed to updating the resident by 5 February 2024. The record keeping and communication failure from C5 hindered the landlord’s ability to provide a full response to the resident. This was unreasonable.
  5. The landlord contacted the resident on 13 February 2024 with an update on the leak. Albeit later than the date specified in the complaint response, it confirmed C5 had noted the leak was not from the vent. It advised C4 had been asked to attend and was trying to arrange an appointment with the resident but had been unable to reach him. The landlord confirmed C4 would try to contact him again or he could contact C4 directly. As the landlord was responsible for ensuring the problem was resolved, it should have taken more ownership of this issue.
  6. In his escalation request the resident said he had evidence from 8 February 2024 to confirm the leak was ongoing. In April 2024 a further inspection found that there were no signs of water in the communal area after heavy rain and suggested that a plumber inspected water tanks that were located above the communal area. This went ahead a week later, and no leaks to the tanks were found. It was suggested that the gully was checked and unblocked if needed. Records show this was done on 7 May 2024.
  7. In the final complaint response, the landlord confirmed a new contractor had been asked to investigate the issue, however it had not been able to access the resident’s home. It is unclear why this was needed as the communal leak was not affecting his property directly. It was therefore unreasonable that the access issues delayed progress.
  8. Having said this, both the January and April 2024 inspections found no water, and the leak did not impact the resident’s property directly, though we understand he spent time and effort contacting the landlord to report the ongoing problem. Therefore, the detriment to the resident from these failings was not significant.
  9. The issue was resolved after the contractor identified the blocked gullies were the cause of the water pooling in the communal area. The completion date is not known, but in contact with this Service in September 2024 the resident suggested the issue was resolved and no further water had not been seen.

Boiler repairs

  1. There is no evidence of any contact from the resident regarding the boiler until he raised this within his complaint escalation on 20 February 2024. Although this Service has not seen evidence to support the comments made by the resident, he said he had been left with a “risky” boiler since the last annual gas service and had not received an update.
  2. The landlord’s repair records include a repair for a “defective boiler” and for 2 wires to be sealed or rewired. The repair was raised on 11 April 2024. This was a failing and the repair should have been raised sooner given the resident’s February 2024 report. The landlord acknowledged and apologised for this in its stage 1 response. The landlord evidenced several attempts of contact with the resident to gain access to repair the boiler over the following few days, before the repair was cancelled. 
  3. In its final complaint response on 12 April 2024 the landlord highlighted attempts of access in August 2023 however this evidence was not provided to us. It is therefore not known what happened after the attempts, if the landlord tried to follow this up, and if the resident had been left with a “risky” boiler as suggested by the resident. Due to the potential safety issue, it was unreasonable of the landlord not to follow this matter up to ensure the repairs were completed.
  4. The landlord raised a new repair on 18 April 2024 with it confirming the repair was completed on 23 April 2024. The resident said he had been told by a contractor and surveyor that a new boiler was needed. There is evidence of dialogue after the final complaint response between the landlord, the heating contractor and the resident which suggests the boiler was to be replaced. The landlord said although it had tried (and has evidenced) a discussion with the resident regarding the efficiency of the proposed model, he continued to refuse the new boiler as he believed the replacement was a downgrade from his current one.

Bathroom odour and subsequent repairs

  1. The resident reported a foul smell in the bathroom on 23 October 2023. The landlord has evidenced that C4 attended on 1 November 2023. As it was not an emergency repair, this was a reasonable response. C4 removed the bath panel and cleared a blockage in the bath waste pipe leading to the stack. The notes confirm the resident was to monitor the smell to see if it returned when further exploration would be needed. This was reasonable.
  2. With no record of any further contact from the resident, the landlord’s repair notes state a call was made to him to arrange an appointment for 10 November 2023. According to the evidence, the bath waste was changed and was working as expected when tested.
  3. The problem continued and on 15 November 2023 an appointment was made for 24 November 2023. The toilet was removed, and a CCTV survey conducted before the toilet was refixed. An issue was traced to the pipework in the stack which needed to be cut out and replaced. The landlord’s records suggest it did try to arrange the follow-on work, but this did not progress as the resident would not agree to an appointment.
  4. In its stage 1 complaint response the landlord acknowledged that follow on works were identified in November 2023 that had not yet been actioned. It said the initial contractor had faced difficulties in sourcing the materials needed for the work and so it had assigned the work to another contractor. This was the appropriate action to take to complete the work as soon as possible, though the landlord should have ensured that this was then followed up. It said it would update the resident in 5 working days. Due to the lack of update, the resident raised this issue in his complaint escalation.
  5. In the final complaint response, the landlord apologised for the delays which it said were due to problems sourcing materials. It said the contractor had recently made several attempts to call the resident to gain access (provided as evidence) but had not been successful. An appointment was made for the contractor to attend on 26 April 2024. It is unclear whether this went ahead. Following this there is evidence that the landlord made attempts at contacting the resident to arrange the works with no success. On 22 May 2024 it informed the resident it would consider legal action to gain access. In response the resident asked for clarity on the works and said he would not provide access if the kitchen would be impacted.
  6. In June and September 2024, the resident confirmed the problem with the bathroom had not been fixed. It is unclear if this issue has been resolved.
  7. In summary while there is some indication of a failing 2023 to attend to the windows, there is also an indication of access issues contributing to this, and the resident did not raise the matter again until January 2024. At this point, the landlord arranged for a contractor to attend swiftly, and no repair issues were identified. 
  8. In relation to the leak from the communal area, there were delays in the landlord’s handling at points. However, there is no indication the leak had a significant impact on the resident, and the leak did not impact his property.
  9. In terms of the boiler, it is unclear whether the landlord appropriately followed up on the boiler repairs in 2023. After the resident raised the matter in his stage 2 escalation the landlord should have taken timely action to resolve the repair, but it was two months before it attended. The repair does not appear to have affected the performance of the boiler or the heating and hot water at the property. We have not seen evidence that the boiler was “risky”.
  10. The evidence indicates that the landlord did not appropriately follow up on the bathroom works in November 2023, and it then failed to provide a timeline for the repairs by 8 February 2024 as promised in its stage 1 response. The repair appears to be outstanding, although the records indicate that there have been access issues which have hindered the landlord’s ability to complete the repair.
  11. There is evidence of poor record keeping, unnecessary delays and at times a lack of ownership and poor (or delayed) communication with the resident to explain the delays in some repairs. There was a lack of recognition to the condition the resident’s home was left in because of the delays to the bathroom works.
  12. To conclude, the Ombudsman finds service failure in relation to the landlord’s response to the resident’s report of repairs to the property and communal area, and requests for information relating to the repairs. The landlord appropriately identified some failings in its response to the complaint, apologised for these and offered £450 compensation for the delays in repairs. This was a reasonable and appropriate level of compensation and is in line the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance for a finding of maladministration whereby the landlord has acknowledged failings and made some attempts to put things right. However, there is little evidence that, in line with our Dispute Resolution Principles, the landlord has ‘learned from outcomes’. In addition, the bathroom works appear to be outstanding. While we recognise that access issue may have impacted this, the landlord does have an obligation to complete repairs for which it is responsible.

 Complaint handling

  1. The landlord’s complaint policy states complaints (stage 1 or 2) will be acknowledged within 5 working days. Stage 1 complaints will be responded to within 10 working days of it being logged and stage 2 complaints will be responded to within 20 working days of the acknowledgement. Regardless of the stage, if an extension is required, the resident will be updated.
  2. The resident submitted his complaint on 15 January 2024. The landlord acknowledged receipt within 3 working days and confirmed its understanding of the complaint and the desired outcome. It provided a response date of 1 February 2024. This was reasonable and in line with its complaint policy.
  3. The landlord responded to the stage 1 complaint on 1 February 2024. It addressed the issues raised and confirmed the actions taken. The landlord highlighted a service failure with the handover process which led to delays regarding the window leak. While it showed attempts to put things right by arranging a new appointment, it did not identify any learning to prevent a recurrence. This was not in line with our Dispute Resolution Principle “learn from outcomes”.
  4. In terms of the communal leak and the bathroom odour, it provided an update on what had been done to date but advised it was still waiting for updates regarding future work. The landlord confirmed it would provide further updates when the information was received, however there is no evidence the updates were provided. This was unreasonable and is likely to have frustrated the resident and contributed to the escalation of the complaint.
  5. The resident escalated the complaint on 20 February 2024. He said he had not received the updates mentioned in the stage 1 response. He said he did not accept the diagnosis regarding his windows and the communal leak was ongoing. Although not raised in the initial complaint, the resident raised an issue with this boiler that he said had been deemed “risky” after the last annual service. The resident did not accept the compensation offer and asked for compensation for the loss of his home and amenities and for the impact on this health. He also requested all job tickets linked to the issues raised.
  6. The landlord acknowledged the escalation request on 26 February 2024 – this was within the policy timescale. It confirmed its understanding of the escalation, the information requested and the desired outcome. The landlord confirmed the case handler and a response date of 25 March 2024. This was in line with policy. The resident asked for a more senior manager to oversee the complaint. Following an email exchange, the landlord confirmed the original case handler was the most appropriate officer to deal with the complaint and it would not be changed. This was a reasonable response from the landlord.
  7. Although slightly over the given response date, on 28 March 2024 the landlord emailed the resident to ask for an extension. It apologised and said due to unforeseen circumstances it was unable to provide the response. It asked the resident to allow it until 12 April 2024 to provide a response.
  8. The landlord provided its final complaint response on 12 April 2024. It apologised for the delay in the complaint response and offered £50 compensation. This was reasonable and in line with the landlord’s compensation policy for low impact caused by one instance of inconvenience.
  9. The landlord apologised for not providing the updates as specified in the stage 1 response, however, did not explain why it had failed to do so. This was unreasonable and likely contributed to the resident’s frustration regarding the landlord’s poor communication. It also meant it did not identify any lessons to prevent a recurrence of such failure. It provided an update on the issues raised, but did not deliver outcomes on all issues raised. The landlord provided the information requested by the resident in his escalation – this was reasonable. It is noted the landlord provided the wrong postal address for this Service on the response letter.
  10. In summary the Ombudsman finds service failure in relation to the landlord’s complaint handling, which likely caused the resident frustration. In line with remedies guidance of this Service, additional compensation has been ordered. This is for service failures where the resident has not been significantly affected but the landlord’s offer is not quite proportionate to the failings identified.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, the Ombudsman finds no maladministration in relation to the landlord’s response to the resident’s report of mice.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, the Ombudsman finds service failure in relation to the landlord’s response to the resident’s report of repairs to the property and communal area and requests for information relating to the repairs.
  3. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, the Ombudsman finds service failure in relation to the landlord’s complaint handling.

Orders and recommendations

  1. Within 4 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord should:
    1. Write a letter of apology to the resident. This should address the failures identified within this report and confirm the improvements to the repairs service to prevent recurrence.
    2. Pay the resident £575 compensation. This is made up of the following:
      1. £500 as offered in the final complaint response dated 12 April 2024.
      2. An additional £75 for the failures identified with the complaint handling.
  2. Within 4 weeks of the date of this report the landlord should contact the resident to discuss and agree the completion of the outstanding repairs to the bathroom. The landlord should provide the resident and this Service with the schedule of works and an estimated completion date.
  3. Within 4 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord (if not already done so), should review its handover process for when staff leave the organisation. The process should be documented by an audit trail to ensure completion and should be timed effectively to allow sufficient support for those staff members taking over the role.
  4. The landlord should provide this Service with evidence to confirm it has complied with the orders above within the specified timescale.

Recommendations

  1. The landlord should review all its documentation to ensure it includes the correct contact details for this Service.
  2. Within 4 weeks of this report, the landlord should confirm its intensions against the recommendations above.