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

Waltham Forest Council (202002996)

Back to Top

 

 

 

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202002996

Waltham Forest Council

29 January 2021


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 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 response to:
    1. The resident’s request for compensation for purchased floor stickers and her labour in repairing the holes in the vinyl flooring; and
    2. The landlord’s complaints handling.

Background and summary of events

Background

  1. The resident is a secure tenant of the landlord at the property, a one-bedroom ground floor flat. The resident has lived in the property since 18 March 2019, and is subject to the terms and conditions contained in the tenancy agreement. The landlord is a local authority.
  2. The resident currently has other complaints that are being investigated by the Ombudsman, however this report will only focus on the complaint that finished the landlord’s complaints procedure on 18 February 2020.
  3. The landlord operates a two-stage complaints policy, the policy requires that complainants are kept updated throughout the complaints process. If the resident makes a complaint at the first stage, the landlord will formally respond within 20 working days. If the resident is dissatisfied with the response, the resident can request a formal review of the decision and a response will be provided within 25 working days.
  4. Under the terms of the residential tenancy agreement the resident must ‘report to the landlord as soon as possible any repairs which are needed if it is the landlord’s responsibility to do those repairs’.
  5. The landlord’s housing repairs policy highlights that all vinyl tile or sheet flooring is the landlord responsibility where it was originally installed by the landlord and presents a potential trip hazard. This was a routine repair and should be completed within 45 days.
  6. The landlord’s compensation policy allows for the payment of refunds to the resident for ‘costs that have been occurred by carrying out repairs because the Council has failed or delayed unreasonably in providing the service’.

Summary of events

  1. On 8 October 2019, the landlord agreed to undergo 6-12 months of movement monitoring at the resident’s property. It expressed that it would repair the vinyl flooring at the property after the monitoring was finished. It highlighted that doing so beforehand would only serve to cover up any movement or cracks appearing on the floor.
  2. On 19 January 2020, the resident made a formal complaint to the landlord regarding the condition of the vinyl floor at the property. The resident was seeking reimbursement of £55.93 for floor stickers she used to cover the holes in the floor temporarily whilst structural monitoring was being conducted. The resident was also seeking compensation for her labour for fixing the holes at 15 hours at £10 per hour totalling £150. The council had agreed to renew the floor once the monitoring was completed however this had taken over 10 months and the resident was stuck with ‘substandard flooring’. The resident stated that she was not seeking reimbursement for other materials and tools and rugs she bought to cover the floor.
  3. On 10 February 2020, the landlord issued the resident with its stage one response. It agreed to replace the vinyl flooring in the resident’s property from the lounge through to the bedroom but would not compensate for the stickers purchased or the resident’s labour. It advised that work to the floor cannot be completed until the monitoring of the floor was finished on 2 June 2020. It advised the resident that purchasing of floor coverings such as rugs/carpets are the tenant’s responsibility and it would not reimburse the resident for such items.
  4. On 14 February 2020, the resident requested a review of the landlord’s stage one response. The resident stated that the landlord did not give enough consideration to the matter and it was because of the landlord that the resident’s floor was in this state. The resident requested that the landlord only consider the issues that were being raised in this complaint and that a member of the landlord staff should not be involved with this complaint as they were dealing with the resident’s other complaint.
  5. On 18 February 2020, the landlord provided the resident with its stage two final response. It advised that it would not reimburse and compensate the resident for the stickers purchased or the resident’s labour. It advised that it would not have provided resident’s with such items in cases where subsidence was being monitored and therefore the resident purchased stickers ‘on her own free will’.  It highlighted that it was dealing with the floor issues in line with its repairs policy and unfortunately the very nature of floor monitoring can be lengthy. It had agreed to replace the vinyl in the property from the lounge through to the bedroom once monitoring was complete.

Assessment and findings

The resident’s request for compensation for purchased floor stickers and her labour in repairing the holes in the vinyl.

  1. The landlord had an obligation under its repairs policy to make good in regard to holes in the vinyl floor where it presents a trip hazard. The landlord had confirmed that it would make the appropriate repairs as soon as the monitoring of the floor for movement had been completed. This had been communicated to the resident and was an appropriate response by the landlord and in line with its policies and procedures.
  2. The resident spent £55.93 on floor stickers to fix the issues of holes in the vinyl, the landlord is able to compensate the resident for repairs where the landlord had failed to reasonably provide the appropriate service. As acknowledged in the paragraph above the landlord had agreed to fix the vinyl flooring and it would not be reasonable to perform the repairs before the monitoring was complete. The resident took it upon themselves to buy the stickers and perform the temporary repairs using their own labour and did not seek the landlord permission. It is not reasonable that the landlord should have to compensate the resident for this as it already agreed to perform the required works once the monitoring was complete.

The landlord complaints handling.

  1. The landlord operates a two-stage complaints policy, if the resident makes a complaint at the first stage the landlord should formally respond within 20 working days. The documentation provided shows the initial complaint by the resident on 19 January 2020 and the landlord supplying a formal response on 20 February 2020. The resident asked for a review of the decision on 14 February 2020. The landlord progressed the complaint and provided its stage two final response on 18 February 2020. The landlord complied with each stage of its complaints process and provided responses within the appropriate timeframes.

Determination (decision)

  1. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was no maladministration in respect of:
    1. The complaint about the resident’s request for compensation for purchased floor stickers and her labour in repairing the holes in the vinyl.
    2. The complaint about the landlord’s complaints handling.

Reasons

  1. The resident chose to perform the repairs at the property even know the landlord had expressed to them beforehand that it would do the repairs on the competition of the movement monitoring. It is therefore not reasonable that the landlord should pay the compensation requested.
  2. The complaints handling by the landlord was in line with its internal policies. It completed stages one and two of the complaint’s procedure within the correct 20-day and 25-day time frames.