Waltham Forest Council (202200694)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202200694

Waltham Forest Council

29 January 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

The resident’s complaint is about the landlord’s:
1. Handling of repairs:
  1. Arising from a leak in the bathroom, and the subsequent associated repairs she requested to floorboards, flooring (including carpets), the bath, ceilings and a cupboard on the floor below;
  2. To the back doors;
  3. To a bedroom window;
  4. To her garden path, and the brickwork on the ground in front of her property;
  5. To her garage;
2. Response to her enquiry regarding responsibility for her garden fences;
3. Response to her reports of pests originating from a neighbouring property;
4. Handling of the associated complaints.

Background and summary of events

Background

The resident holds a secure tenancy for a three-bedroomed house.
The landlord is a local authority. The landlord’s tenancy terms and conditions guide sets out the resident’s responsibility to keep her home free from pests. In the event of an infestation, it says she must take immediate action to deal with the problem, and notify its environmental health department. Lastly, it says that residents may be charged if they require the assistance of that department.
The landlord’s repairs policy sets out that the landlord is responsible for “any pest infestation affecting more than one dwelling”, and that it will “tackle” infestations that have spread from a neighbouring property.
Section 1.29 of the tenancy terms and conditions sets out the resident’s responsibility for maintaining any fencing to a reasonable standard, and to replace it if necessary. It says residents should consult the landlord for guidance.
The tenancy terms and conditions also say residents must let anybody working for the landlord into their home, as long as the landlord has told them in advance and it is not at an unreasonable time.
The guidance then sets out the landlord’s responsibilities under section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act (1985), to keep the property in repair, which it explains includes keeping the bath in working order.
The landlord’s repairs policy sets out its response times to different categories of repair:
1. 24 hours for emergencies (2 hours for those raised out of hours);
2. 5 calendar days for urgent repairs;
3. 21 calendar days for routine repairs;
4. 45 calendar days for more complex repairs.
The repairs policy specifies that residents are responsible for repair/ replacement of carpets and other floor coverings not provided by the landlord. The landlord is responsible for vinyl tile and sheet flooring (for example, lino) in bathrooms, WCs, hallways, where they present a trip hazard.
The repairs policy says residents are responsible for repairing “any damage” to sanitary fittings, including bath panels. It is not clear from the wording if this means only if that damage was caused by the resident or their guests, but it is assumed this is the case.
The repairs policy confirms the landlord is responsible for maintenance of external doors and frames, and for external paths.
The landlord has a two-stage complaints process. Its policy sets out that it will respond to stage 1 complaints within 10 working days, and stage 2 complaints within 20 working days.
The landlord’s compensation policy specifies that it will not pay compensation for damage to personal property or belongings over £200. It gives its staff discretion for “minimal” claims. It expects larger claims to be directed to its insurance team for a liability claim.
The compensation policy guides the landlord’s staff around the circumstances in which it will offer financial redress, including consideration of the effect of the complainant’s own actions, quantifiable loss, loss of a non-monetary benefit, loss of value, lost opportunity, distress, and time and trouble. It sets out that £25 compensation should be offered for a missed appointment, and it guides its staff that rent rebates will only be offered where a total loss of enjoyment of the home has been experienced (and that compensation should instead be used where partial loss of enjoyment has been experienced). Lastly, it gives examples of cases where refunds can be appropriate, for example certain circumstances where a resident has incurred additional heating costs.
During the course of the events described below, the resident made separate complaints to the landlord about other matters. These will not be referred to in the summary of events, as they fall outside the scope of this investigation.

Summary of Events

The resident has explained that she first reported a leak from her bathroom in 2017. The landlord’s records show a repair job was raised on 20 November 2017, then cancelled on 19 December 2017, for the bathroom floorboards, which the resident had reported were “caving in”.
In June 2018 the resident reported a leak to the soil pipe of her toilet, and the landlord carried out an urgent repair.
On 12 December 2018 the resident again reported that her bathroom floor boards were caving in. The landlord raised a repair job for its contractor to attend and report back their findings. This was marked as completed on 18 December 2018.
There is a gap in the records, until 17 April 2020 when the resident reported that there was a hole in her bath, which was “making the ceiling collapse”. The landlord raised an urgent repair job to make it safe, and this was completed the same day.
On 29 April 2020 the resident emailed her housing officer, and raised the following issues:
1. There was an old garage in her garden, which was falling down. The landlord had advised that it contained asbestos, and she asked if it would remove it due to the health hazard it presented. She said its condition made the access to her garden unsecure, which concerned her due to her back door being “temperamental”;
2. The fence to one side of her garden was in need of replacement, and she asked whose responsibility it was;
3. About a year previously, she had reported that her bathroom floor had fallen through. The landlord had fitted some plywood to make it safe, however she had since tried calling several times and been told there was no record of this and a surveyor would be in touch. The leak had since caused the floor to fall through and the ceiling below to fall down. A repair had been carried out to stop the leak under her bath, and she had been told that the ceiling was not a priority. Her house was “filling up with mould” and she asked for advice on how to get the repairs progressed;
4. She had noticed cracks in most of the ceilings and walls, the middle-floor floorboards were “bouncy” and “loud”, and the downstairs electric flickered when someone walked on them. She was concerned these were safety issues;
5. The resident understood the issues she had raised may not be “a priority” during the pandemic, but she would “welcome” someone visiting to see the issues and discuss in person, once “this is all over”.
There is another gap in communications, until the resident contacted the landlord on 3 September 2021 to report several repairs, including a hole in the bathroom floor under one of the bath legs. The resident explained this meant she could not use the bath.
On 9 September 2021 the resident contacted the landlord and explained she had been told by its contractor that the floor (understood to be the bathroom floor) would fall through, and she could not use her bath. She asked the landlord to either make her bathroom safe that day, or to organise alternative accommodation for her. She expressed her dissatisfaction with the lack of progress that had been made with the repair to date.
The landlord’s complaint handler spoke with the resident on 13 September 2021. They discussed that the landlord’s surveyor had attended on 10 September 2021, and advised the resident that the affected flooring would need to be “completely replaced”.
On 22 September 2021 the repair job for the hole under the bath leg was marked as completed, with the notes showing the operative had installed a temporary support for the leg, and advised that the bath would need to be taken out and a new floor fitted. They also noted that a temporary board had been fitted “years ago” which needed “attention”, as the hole in the bathroom floor now affected the ceiling to the first-floor store cupboard.
On 19 October 2021 a repair job to reinstate/ renew the bath side panel was raised by the landlord.
On 16 November 2021 a repair job to wash down, carry out mould treatment, and repaint the ceiling of the walk–in cupboard was raised by the landlord.
The resident chased the landlord for an update on 30 November 2021, and again on 2 December 2021. The landlord’s records suggest that the floor had been repaired, and the resident had asked for the bath panel to be reinstated.
On 22 December 2021 the resident reported another leak from the bathroom to the cupboard below, and described the floor boards as “bulging up”. She reported that there were exposed wires. An urgent repair to make this safe was raised by the landlord, and marked as completed the same day.
The next day, 23 December 2021, the landlord raised a repair job for the bath waste pipe, and noted that it had identified the leak (which it said had flooded the downstairs landing) had arisen when the bath was emptied. This repair job was marked as completed on 24 December 2021.
On 24 December 2021, the resident emailed the landlord to express her frustration at the lack of progress with her bath repair. She explained it had been repaired poorly, continued to leak, and black mould was growing on the affected ceiling. She had been told by the landlord’s contractor that it would attend on 7 January 2022 to change the drainage pipes. She explained she had asked on 23 December 2021 for this to be moved forward, and a repair was scheduled for 24 December 2021. The repair had then been cancelled that morning, and she had been advised the contractor would not attend before Christmas. She explained this left her without washing facilities.
On 29 December 2021 the resident contacted the landlord to chase the repair, highlighting again that she had been without bathing facilities for over four days. The landlord’s staff communicated internally and clarified that the resident had been told not to use her bath until the pipes had been replaced. It raised two duplicate repair jobs, and confirmed an appointment was booked for 7 January 2022. The first of the repair jobs was cancelled on 30 December 2021, which it is assumed is because it was a duplicate.
The landlord marked the repairs to the bath panel and cupboard as complete on 6 January 2022.
The resident submitted a stage 1 complaint to the landlord on 27 March 2022, and raised the following issues:
1. She summarised the history of the leak, which she said dated back to 2019. She explained the bathroom leak had caused “severe damage” since her contact of 29 April 2020, and she had lost personal belongings;
2. She had been left with a “bit of plywood” instead of a bath panel, which looked “shocking”;
3. The grouting that had been applied to her garden path by the landlord’s contractor was “shocking”, and left it more unsafe than it had been before. The operatives had left cement “everywhere” outside;
4. The operatives had “ruined” her stairs carpet when they pulled it up, and had not repaired the floorboards underneath;
5. The landlord told her the bathroom was “deemed unsafe to use” on 13 July 2021, and she was of the opinion the property had fallen below the decent homes standard;
6. She had not heard back from the landlord after her last request for an update on 26 February 2022;
7. Her neighbour’s property was “dirty” and had led to mice and cockroaches;
8. She had been caused stress and anxiety, felt ignored, hated her home, and explained she did not feel comfortable there;
9. She asked for a meeting with a senior member of staff, and for a formal complaint to be logged.
On 29 March 2022 the landlord marked the repairs it had raised on 29 December 2021 as cancelled.
The landlord issued its stage 1 response to the resident on 27 April 2022. It summarised the outstanding repairs issues the resident had complained about, and advised that its contractor had since attended. It apologised for the lack of communication, said it upheld her complaint, and confirmed it would send one of its managers to assess the works on 6 May 2022. Lastly, it explained how the resident could escalate the complaint if she remained dissatisfied.
The landlord logged the resident’s request to escalate the complaint to stage 2 on 29 April 2022. The resident objected to the named manager attending to assess the repairs, and the landlord agreed to change this to its surveyor.
The surveyor attended on 9 May 2022 and raised the following repair jobs, to be completed by its contractor within the 21–day timeframe for routine repairs:
1. Overhaul the pvcu window in the top floor bedroom;
2. Renew the bathroom chipboard flooring;
3. Refix the bathroom hand basin;
4. Renew the flex cable to the light in the hallway cupboard;
5. Repaint the hallway cupboard walls and ceiling;
6. Renew the carpet in the hallway cupboard;
7. Renew the lock to the rear doors;
8. Rake out and re-grout the front path tiles.
The landlord issued its stage 2 complaint response on 23 May 2022, which covered the following points:
1. The resident had complained about the delay to the landlord’s stage 1 complaint response. The landlord advised it had responded within its 20 working day target;
2. The resident had complained about the landlord’s decision not to look back further than 12 months when investigating her complaint. The landlord explained that it applied a cut-off of 12 months to complain about an issue, and said this was due to the difficulty of investigating complaints as time passes. It had, it said, checked the records available since the resident registered an online account with it in March 2020, and found no records of a complaint being logged prior to the resident’s stage 1 complaint in March 2022. It said that where information regarding events more than 12 months previously had been made available to the stage 2 complaint handler, they had included this in the stage 2 response;
3. It described its understanding of the layout of the resident’s home, advised that it had no vulnerabilities or disability listed for the resident’s household, and asked her to contact it if she wanted anything added to her file. It explained this information would usually be shared with its contractors;
4. It provided a list of the repairs it had on record dating from 2016. It noted the resident had not logged a repair in 2019. It also supplied a list of events that its building services (repairs) team had provided the complaint handler with;
5. The complaints handler acknowledged that the resident had reported a problem with the bath in April 2020, and advised the landlord’s records showed this as “resolved within days”. They summarised the works order history as shown on the landlord’s repair records for September and December 2021;
6. A repair for the window was raised on 3 September 2021, and subsequently cancelled. The complaint handler had not been able to confirm why this was, and acknowledged the resident had subsequently chased the repair. They confirmed the repair was outstanding when the resident had submitted her stage 1 and 2 complaints;
7. It included the list of works the surveyor had raised after their visit on 9 May 2022, and confirmed they would be completed within 21 days. Its contractor would be in touch with the resident to arrange the repairs;
8. The complaints handler set out their conclusion that, whilst the leaks had been made safe when reported, the follow-up work to remedy the damage had not been carried out by the time of the resident’s stage 1 and 2 complaints;
9. The complaints handler agreed the landlord’s communication could have been better, and apologised;
10. It noted the resident had mentioned damage caused to her belongings, and set out its expectation that residents have contents insurance. It provided the resident with details of how to make a claim via its insurance team, if she believed the damage was a direct result of failures by the landlord. It explained decisions regarding insurance fell outside the scope of its complaints process;
11. The landlord apologised for the upset and distress the resident had experienced, upheld her complaint, and offered £800 compensation. It explained it had reached this figure working on the basis of eight months between September 2021 and May 2022, and broke the amounts down as follows:
  1. £25 per month for the delays in carrying out the repairs to the bathroom and areas affected by the leak, totalling £200;
  2. £150 for the failure to repair the window, with consideration given to the resident’s increased heating bills;
  3. £25 per month for distress and inconvenience, with an additional £100 for inconvenience over the Christmas period, totalling £300;
  4. £150 for time and trouble;
12. It had asked its contractor to ensure it contacted the resident by 31 May 2022 with an appointment for the works, and that it organised a post-works inspection by its surveyor, no later than 30 June 2022, to ensure all works were completed to standard;
13. It advised it had completed the final stage of its complaint process, and directed the resident to the Housing Ombudsman if she remained dissatisfied.
The resident emailed the landlord on 1 June 2022, and expressed her ongoing dissatisfaction with its response. She explained that the repairs had not been arranged by 31 May 2022 as the landlord had promised her, which left her feeling “fobbed off” and not taken seriously. She asked the landlord for a copy of the report from its surveyor who had attended on 9 May 2022, and explained that the stage 2 response she had received had ignored the matters of the garage, her fence, and had not provided clarity on what would happen regarding the carpets in her home.
The landlord responded to the resident’s email on 6 June 2022;
1. It apologised that the repair works had not been arranged, and advised the resident it would provide a further update once it had followed up with its contractor;
2. It further apologised for the fact it had sent a particular member of staff to survey the required works, when the resident had asked for someone different to attend;
3. The landlord advised the resident to submit an insurance claim to it, as she did not have her own contents insurance;
4. The landlord’s surveyor would respond to the resident regarding the carpet, fence and garage;
5. It reiterated that its stage 2 response and offer of compensation was final, and the resident had acted correctly in escalating her complaint to this Service as she remained dissatisfied. The landlord assured the resident it would co-operate with our investigation.
The resident emailed the landlord in response on 6 June 2022, and told it she was becoming “increasingly frustrated with the lack of responsibility and accountability” from the landlord. She explained “sorry just is not good enough”, and a real apology would include the completion of the outstanding repairs.
The stage 2 complaints handler responded to the resident the next day, and reiterated that they could not answer some of her questions, as they relied on information and action from other members of staff. They explained the landlord had accepted its communication “could have been better”, and referenced its apology in the stage 2 response. The complaints handler reiterated that they felt the best course of action at that point would be for an independent investigation (by this Service).
The landlord has advised that in October 2023 it raised the following works to its contractor:
1. Lift the bathroom vinyl flooring, and check the floorboards;
2. Check the bath, toilet and sink for leaks and check them for movement;
3. Replace four rows of tiles around the bath, and refit the bath panel;
4. Check and repair the floorboards and tread to the landing and stairs, and one bedroom;
5. Fit vinyl flooring inside the hallway cupboard;
6. Ease and adjust the window in one of the bedrooms;
7. Repair the back door locks and make sure the doors close properly (marked as urgent). It added that it had agreed on 17 October 2023 to fit a new back door;
8. Rake out and re-point the front pathway from the gate to the front door;
9. Repair the front door “canopy”;
10. Clear the gutters and re-fix some tiles above the rear top-floor window;
11. Unspecified pest control.
The resident sought further clarity and an update from the landlord on 22 November 2023, and the member of staff who responded told her “at the moment my focus is on getting the works moving along. I shall pull together a fuller response as I find out more.”
Around 27 November 2023, the landlord decided to log a fresh stage 1 complaint after the resident expressed what the landlord described as “long-standing and significant concerns regarding ongoing property disrepair.” There were several newer issues included, but it also covered the previously raised issues of:
1. Pest control;
2. The garden fence;
3. The bedroom window;
4. The front of the property (path and brickwork);
5. Patio back doors;
6. Ceiling works (after an asbestos check);
7. Carpet damage.
The landlord issued a stage 1 complaint response on 13 December 2023, in which it:
1. Referenced a visit that had been conducted with a member of the landlord’s staff and the resident’s local Councillor in late September 2023, and a subsequent inspection carried out by two “experienced” surveyors that was intended to produce an exhaustive list of all repairs needed to the property on 5 October 2023;
2. Recognised there was “an avoidable delay” until the identified works were raised on 17 October 2023, and a further “avoidable” delay before these were authorised by the landlord, which it explained led to a gap of two months before the works were scheduled to start on 29 November 2023;
3. Explained it had then put the works on hold after the resident had refused access to its contractor and complained that some works had been missed out from the surveyor’s list. The landlord set out its view that “nothing of a substantive nature” had been omitted or overlooked;
4. Appeared to confuse the resident’s request for her stairs and landing carpets to be repaired/ replaced with the order that had been raised for the replacement of flooring in the cupboard;
5. Offered a further £700 in compensation to the resident:
  1. £375 for its delays in progressing and delivering the works appropriately between June 2022 and September 2023;
  2. £25 for the delay in raising the works arising from the October 2023 inspection;
  3. £25 for delays caused by variations to the works orders;
  4. £25 for delays to the temporary door repairs;
  5. £25 for the delays in raising pest control works;
  6. £150 for the inconvenience the resident had been caused (including £50 for inadequate amenities and facilities);
  7. £75 for the resident’s time and trouble.
6. Advised the resident she could escalate the complaint to stage 2 if she remained dissatisfied.
The resident responded to the landlord on 14 December 2023, and disputed that she had refused access to its contractor. She explained she still had not received clarity on it regarding its position on the carpet. She has let the landlord know of her ongoing dissatisfaction with its responses.
The resident did acknowledge the pest control the landlord had paid for, and described it as the first thing the landlord had done that had improved the situation for her and her family.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s records contained several different dates for events, which made it difficult to determine the exact days on which they occurred. However, it is clear that there were significant and unreasonable gaps in responses and actions on the part of the landlord with regards to many of the matters the resident raised.
The landlord’s lengthy responses to the resident contained a lot of copied and pasted detail of its internal discussions between staff, which did demonstrate it had registered the resident’s concerns and dissatisfaction at various points and showed several members of staff had contacted their colleagues and sought to progress the issues the resident had raised. However, this did not result in actual resolutions to the matters.
The Housing Ombudsman does not make decisions as to whether health conditions have been caused by the actions (or lack of) by the landlord, however we acknowledge that the resident is very worried about the impacts on her children’s health, and reports that she herself has been unable to work due the impact of the outstanding repairs. We accept that the resident has had a very upsetting experience and we have considered the overall impact on her in this investigation.

Repairs to the bath

There were several repairs to the resident’s bathroom dating back to 2017, however it is not clear what the root cause was found to be on those occasions. The resident reported a leak specifically from her bath in April 2020. By September 2021 the resident was unable to use her bath due to the instability of the floor below.
The resident complained to the landlord about the condition the bath had been left in, with a temporary wooden panel put in place, in her stage 1 complaint at the end of March 2022. It said it would carry out an inspection and any necessary repairs, but then failed to do so.
The landlord’s repair records show that as of October 2023 the repairs to the bath had not been completed. This was an inappropriate delay.

Assessment of and repairs to the flooring

This was one of the resident’s main concerns. She repeatedly told the landlord that she was worried that the different leaks had made her floorboards unsafe, and described them as “bouncy” in April 2020, and “bulging up” in December 2021. In her stage 1 complaint of March 2022, she drew the landlord’s attention to the fact the floorboards had not been repaired by its contractor.
The landlord had promised to inspect the floorboards and carry out necessary repairs, but as of October 2023 the floorboards had not been confirmed as safe. This is another significant and inappropriate delay on the part of the landlord.

Repairs to the storage cupboard

The resident told the landlord a leak from her bathroom had gone through to the cupboard below, in December 2021. The landlord raised an emergency repair to make it safe, which was completed the same day.
The landlord raised several repairs relating to the floor covering, decoration and electrics within the cupboard after its inspection of 9 May 2022, which was carried out as part of the promised actions in the landlord’s stage 1 complaint response.
These repairs were raised again by the landlord in October 2023, having not been completed by then. This is a further inappropriate delay on the part of the landlord.

The damage caused to the resident’s carpet

The resident told the landlord, in her stage 1 complaint, that her carpet had been damaged when it was taken up by its contractors. She explained that she felt the payment to put this right should fall to the landlord, rather than herself.
The landlord’s stage 2 complaint response, of 23 May 2022, advised the resident to submit a liability insurance claim to it, and the landlord reiterated this advice on 6 June 2022. This was in line with its policies, and was a reasonable suggestion on the part of the landlord.
It is understandable that the resident would not want to replace the carpet until the full checks of the floorboards had been completed. Given the time that has passed due to the landlord’s delays, the landlord should now consider whether it would be appropriate to directly reimburse the resident for the cost of the new carpet.

The ill-fitting back doors

The resident explained that the back doors to her property were not secure and also led to excessive cold in the living areas of her home, due to the draught. The resident has explained this had health impacts on her child and led to the spread of mould within her home.
The resident reported that the doors were “temperamental” and she was worried about security in April 2020. The landlord raised a repair for the lock after its surveyor visited on 9 May 2022, which was confirmed in its stage 2 complaint response. This was repair was re-raised in October 2023 and is another inappropriate delay on the part of the landlord.
The landlord should now ensure it takes appropriate steps to assess and treat the damp and mould the resident has reported in her home.

The ill-fitting bedroom window

The landlord acknowledged its failure to repair the window in its stage 2 response, which it said the resident had first reported on 3 September 2021. It offered the resident £150 compensation for this failure. Whilst it is positive that it offered redress for this failing, the landlord then failed to ensure that the required work was completed and it therefore did not put matters right for the resident.
The ease and adjustment of the window was included in its list of repairs raised in October 2023, and £150 is in our view not a sufficient amount to cover the extended period the resident has had to wait for this to be fixed.

Repairs to the garden path

The landlord is responsible for maintenance of the garden path, under the tenancy terms and conditions. The resident told the landlord the path had been repaired poorly by its contractor, in her stage 1 complaint.
The landlord accepted that it needed to get its contractor to revisit and carry out further works to the path in its stage 2 response. This was another repair that had to be re-raised by the landlord in October 2023, having not been completed by that point.
The resident raised concerns about broken and uneven bricks at the front of her property in her stage 1 complaint. This was not addressed by the landlord until it raised work to rake out an area of six metres squared, and repoint it, in October 2023.

Handling of repairs

As set out in the previous sections of our assessment, there were significant delays in completing repair works, and there was a failure to ensure that commitments to carry out repairs were then actioned.
The impact on the resident and her family has been significant. Her family have been unable to use the bath for several years, which she has explained was important to them, and she has been caused uncertainty and distress.
Taken altogether, the landlord’s failures to ensure the repairs, which it had identified during its own complaint investigation, were completed has led to a finding of severe maladministration.

Responsibility for the garden fences

The resident asked the landlord for clarity as to who was responsible for repairs to her garden fences in April 2020, and did not receive a response from the landlord. She raised the matter again in her stage 1 complaint, and has explained that she showed the landlord’s surveyor the damage in their visit of 9 May 2022.
The resident explained to the landlord in June 2022 that this matter was important to her, as her neighbour’s children could access her garden and had recently racially abused her child.
The landlord has not provided evidence that it has provided any further clarity to the resident, as of the end of 2023. It has, however confirmed it will replace some of the fencing.
The landlord’s tenancy terms and conditions set out the resident’s responsibility for the repair and replacement of fences, however it also advises residents to contact it for guidance. The landlord should have been able to confirm its position reasonably quickly on this basis, and it is a serious failing that it left the matter unresolved for so long.

The garage

The resident raised concerns about a collapsing garage in her garden, which she was worried had asbestos, in her contact of April 2020. She included the matter in her stage 1 complaint, but the landlord did not respond on the matter at either complaint stages.
The landlord’s tenancy terms are not clear on responsibility for an external garage, however it would be reasonable to conclude that it is responsible for addressing any safety concerns, as it is for garden paths. Alternatively, if the landlord considered that it was not responsible for the garage it should have clearly explained this to the resident when she first raised it. The landlord’s failure to comment on or acknowledge the resident’s concerns about the garage are particularly concerning, given that she was worried about the presence of asbestos. The landlord’s failure to respond will therefore have caused distress and uncertainty to the resident.
We have not seen any evidence of action on this matter by the landlord, as of the end of 2023. This represents another matter which the landlord has inappropriately delayed responding to the resident on, and suggests a failure to provide its staff with adequate guidance to ensure its responsibilities are fulfilled.

Pests

The resident reported that the “unhygienic” conditions of her neighbour’s property were encouraging cockroaches and mice in her stage 1 complaint. She raised this again with the landlord in May 2022, and this is another matter that remained unaddressed and unresolved until the landlord raised an order for pest control in October 2023.
The resident has reported that the pest control has started to improve the situation. This is positive, but also demonstrates that she experienced a long period of avoidable distress until the landlord responded.

Handling of the associated complaint

The evidence we have seen shows that the landlord did not appropriately use its complaints process to address and rectify the issues the resident had raised, and that it would have been beneficial for it to have identified specific members of staff who were responsible for ensuring an appropriate outcome was reached. This should have included making sure the resident was provided with clear information on what the landlord would do, when it would do it, and then making sure it was done (and to a good standard).
We have recently issued a determination on a different case, reference 202217685, in which we concluded that the landlord needed to improve its project management capabilities, and put in place processes to manage the performance of its contractors. Our findings in that report are applicable to this case, as although the landlord acknowledged its failings at stage 2, and offered £800 compensation to the resident, a year and a half later the repairs were still outstanding.
The landlord should consider whether it has adequate systems in place to ensure its managers are able to recognise and address performance issues with its service delivery. This could include a review of the way it records, tracks, and reports on work through its IT systems.
We have made orders below to increase the offer of compensation, to reflect this lengthy delay and the compounding effect it had on the resident’s distress and inconvenience.
The landlord advised the resident that it had 20 working days to respond to her stage 1 complaint under its policy. Its complaint procedure is published on its website, and specifies that whilst complaints are generally responded to within 20 working days, ones related to its housing services should be responded to within 10 working days. This shorter timeframe matches our expectations, as set out in the Housing Ombudsman’s complaint handling code. The landlord has not explained this difference, but we accept that our code has changed during the period of this complaint and the landlord may have updated its procedure accordingly.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman scheme, there was severe maladministration in the landlord’s handling of repairs:
1. Arising from a leak in the bathroom, and the subsequent associated repairs the resident requested to floorboards, flooring (including carpets), the bath, ceilings and a cupboard on the floor below;
2. To the back doors;
3. To a bedroom window;
4. To her garden path, and the brickwork on the ground in front of her property;
5. To her garage.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman scheme, there was service failure in the landlord’s response to the resident’s enquiry regarding responsibility for her garden fences.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman scheme, there was service failure in the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of pests originating from a neighbouring property.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman scheme, there was severe maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the associated complaints.

Reasons

The landlord has now taken reasonable steps with regards to the resident’s fences and the pests she reported. The length of time it took to get to this point has been covered in our assessment of its complaint handling. Taking into account the considerable upset and time and trouble caused to the resident while she waited for the resolution, we have found service failure on these points.
It is not acceptable that the resident has had to live in a property requiring such extensive repairs for so long. Nearly two years have elapsed since she raised a formal stage 1 complaint, but she had reported the issues between six and twelve months earlier than that.
The landlord has failed to ensure the resident could exercise quiet enjoyment of her home, or that it met its obligations under the Landlord and Tenant Act (1985) to keep the property in repair.
The impact of the disrepair has been severe on the resident. She has described health impacts on her children, her mother, and herself. She reported concerns about several potential safety hazards that were not appropriately addressed by the landlord, which included asbestos, damp and mould, excessive cold.
The landlord’s complaints process did not provide the resident with adequate clarity of its positions on the matters she raised. Its complaint handlers did not appear to have sufficient information to answer her questions appropriately, and there did not appear to be an assignment of responsibility to ensure that promised actions were completed.
The resident has been caused significant distress and inconvenience in having to chase responses from the landlord, and it is understandable that she reported feeling ignored and not taken seriously.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

We have not repeated any orders or recommendations that arose from our investigation into another case involving the landlord, reference 202217685, to avoid duplication. The landlord is asked to carefully consider any additional learning or insight arising from this investigation when addressing the orders made in our other report.
Within three weeks of the date of this report, a member of the landlord’s senior leadership team should apologise to the resident for the distress and inconvenience she has been caused by its failure to respond appropriately to the matters she raised. It should provide us with a copy of this once complete.
Within four weeks of the date of this report, the landlord should directly pay the resident a total of £8,500 compensation, made up of:
1. The £1,500 it previously offered;
2. A further £6,400, equivalent to roughly 40% of the resident’s rent over a two year period, in recognition of the distress and inconvenience caused by its delays in repairs and cumulative failings to address the concerns she had raised;
3. £400 for the distress caused to the resident due to its failure to fully respond to matters she had raised in her complaint;
4. An additional £200 for the time and trouble caused to the resident due to its failure to complete actions that had been promised in its complaint response within a reasonable timeframe.
Within four weeks of the date of this report, the landlord should consider whether it would be appropriate to directly reimburse the resident for the cost of new carpet, taking into account the length of time she has waited for a resolution. It should write to the resident to confirm its decision, and provide us with a copy.
The landlord must now ensure the repairs it has raised to the bathroom, flooring, cupboard, back doors, window, fences, path and front bricks are completed. It must confirm to us when these have been completed, which should be no later than four weeks after the date of this report.
Within three weeks of the date of this report, the landlord should write to the resident and explain who is responsible for repair and replacement of each section of fence around her property in future. It should provide us with a copy of this once completed.
Within six weeks of the date of this report, the landlord should ensure the garage is inspected by suitably qualified professionals to check for safety risks and asbestos, and that it has confirmed to the resident any repair works it will carry out as a result of the findings. It must provide us with confirmation of these works and the timescales these will be completed within.
The landlord must confirm to us, within two weeks of the date of this report, that it will continue to arrange and pay for pest control works as required, until the infestations have been cleared.
Within six weeks of the date of this report, the landlord must:
1. Consider whether it has adequate processes in place to recognise and address performance issues with its service delivery. This should include consideration of the way it records, tracks, and reports on its work (in particular in relation to complaints handling, repairs and housing management), which could include through the use of its IT systems;
2. Assess whether its procedures give enough clarity to its staff as to who is responsible for:
  1. Ensuring clear information on the actions it will take in response to a complaint are provided to residents, including details of when the actions will be carried out;
  2. Making sure that any promised actions arising from a complaint response are completed, and to a good standard;
3. Assess whether its complaint handlers have been given sufficient guidance on how to locate its policies in relation to its tenancy terms and conditions, and housing policies, to ensure they are able to recognise its responsibilities as a landlord;
4. Confirm to us to the findings of its considerations and assessments, and any action it will take as a result.

Recommendations

We recommend that the landlord appoint a suitably qualified individual to assesses the reported areas of damp and mould within the resident’s property, and that it carries out any appropriate treatment or remedies that are identified.
On receipt of this report, it is recommended that the landlord contact the resident and provides her with the contact details for its insurance team and the details of what she needs to do to submit a claim for damaged belongings.
The resident has been in correspondence with the landlord regarding some other repairs more recently. It is recommended that the landlord ensure all repairs identified as necessary and raised after its surveyor’s visit in October 2023 are now completed.