Waltham Forest Council (202227302)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202227302

Waltham Forest Council

31 May 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 planned repairs and improvements in the resident’s property.

Background

2. The resident was an assured tenant of the landlord. The resident has since moved out of the property.
3. On 19 April 2022, the landlord’s contractors wrote to the resident and advised that extensive work would commence in her property. The planned work included replacing her kitchen and bathroom, as well as installing new doors and ceilings. The letter confirmed that the work would take approximately 30 days to complete.
4. The resident raised a complaint on 2 September 2022. She said that the work was incomplete, and the property was not fit for human habitation. The resident said that the landlord had been negligent and failed to communicate with her or provide her with any updates about the outstanding work.
5. On 6 October 2022, the landlord issued its stage one response. The landlord explained that after starting work in the resident’s property, it came to light that the internal walls did not meet fire safety requirements. It said that the work came to a standstill, as all internal walls would need to be rebuilt. The landlord said that it had offered to temporarily move the resident, but she had refused. It asked that the resident allow access to the property so its contractors could complete the required works.
6. The resident escalated her complaint due to the landlord’s lack of transparency and poor communication. The resident said that the landlord had not told her about the issues with the internal walls, nor had they properly advised her about the option to temporarily move out the property. The resident said that she had not received an update about when works would recommence.
7. On 22 December 2022, the landlord issued its stage two response. It acknowledged that work had commenced in the resident’s property on 6 May 2022 and stopped on 9 June 2022. There was no evidence that the landlord explained why the work had stopped until it provided its stage one response. The landlord stated that it had offered to decant the resident on 1 August 2022, but should have done more to resolve the situation and complete the work when she refused to move.
8. The landlord recognised that the work had still not been completed in the property. It said that it would arrange to carry out a survey, and it would finish the outstanding work within a reasonable and realistic timeframe. The landlord apologised for its failures and offered the resident £1500 compensation, comprised of;
   1. £1000 for its failure to progress the works in her home.
   2. £100 for its poor communication.
   3. £300 for the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident.
   4. £100 for the resident’s time and trouble.
9. The landlord also advised that the resident would receive a rent rebate from 9 June 2022, up until the date she was able to move back into her property following a temporary decant. The landlord also highlighted that it had identified learning regarding its communication with resident’s, ensuring it responded to complaints appropriately and it would consider conducting surveys in the future prior to planned works.
10. The resident remains dissatisfied because of the significant distress she and her family suffered while living in the property. The resident said that the property was not fit for habitation and her daughter, who was studying for exams, was significantly impacted emotionally. The resident has since accepted a permanent decant from the property, but this does not detract from the lengthy distress and inconvenience that she endured.
11. The landlord has advised this Service that all works were put on hold in the property until the resident had been decanted. However, the decant took a long time to arrange due to the resident’s choice of property that she wished to move to. The landlord said that the resident was permanently decanted in February 2024.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s handling of planned repairs and improvements in the resident’s property.

12. The landlord’s repairs policy states that it is responsible for maintaining the structure of its homes, including the walls and ceilings. The landlord is also responsible for replacing fixtures and fittings that it has provided in its properties. With regards to timescales, the policy outlines that the landlord would aim to undertake works that do not fall within emergency, urgent or routine repairs within 45 days.
13. The landlord’s contractors advised the resident that extensive repairs and improvements would be made in her property and work would be complete within 30 days. This was reasonable and in line with the landlord’s obligations to maintain the structure, fixtures and fittings in the property.
14. Work stopped in the property on 9 June 2022 due to issues with the partition walls. There is no evidence that the landlord explained to the resident what the issues were, or how long the work would be delayed. This was inappropriate. The landlord explained the reasons for the delays in its stage one response; 4 months after work in the property had stopped. The landlord is expected to reasonably manage the resident’s expectations regarding when the repairs will be completed, and there is no evidence that it did this, resulting in the resident having to spend additional time and effort in chasing the completion of the work.
15. The Service has seen evidence of internal landlord communications that said the resident had requested a letter that outlined the issues with the walls, and what the landlord intended to do moving forward. This was a reasonable request and was information that this Service would expect the landlord to share without the resident having to request it. The landlord did not write to the resident which was unreasonable and demonstrated poor customer service.
16. The resident provided this Service and the landlord with several photographs of her property that evidenced unfinished repairs. Internal communications between landlord staff reviewed by this Service show that they had also considered the photographs and deemed that the property had not been left in a reasonable state. This Service has also reviewed the photographs, which evidence the property being left with exposed electrical wires and pipes throughout the property, as well as holes in walls and a general poor condition.
17. It is concerning that the landlord failed to offer the resident the option of moving out of the property temporarily until 1 August 2022. This Service is aware that the resident refused the landlord’s offer as she wished for a permanent move. Irrespective of the resident’s decision, the landlord should have offered to decant the resident sooner, given that works in the property had stopped on 9 June 2022 and it had evidence of the property being left in a poor condition. The delay was unreasonable.
18. The landlord acknowledged its failings in its stage two response. It appropriately recognised that it had failed to complete the repairs and improvements in a reasonable timeframe, and its communication with the resident about the delays fell below the landlord’s expected standards. The landlord offered a sincere apology, highlighted learning, and offered the resident £1,500 compensation for its failings.
19. The landlord has since confirmed that the resident was decanted in February 2024 and no work had been undertaken in the property during that time. This Service understands that the resident had refused any further repairs, and she also refused to move into temporary accommodation while work was carried out to restore the property to an acceptable condition.
20. Therefore, while the resident was undoubtedly living in a property of poor condition for a long time, this was not due to a failure of the landlord.
21. Where there are admitted failings by a landlord, the Ombudsman’s role is to consider whether the redress offered by the landlord put things right and resolved the resident’s complaint satisfactorily in the circumstances. In considering this the Ombudsman considers whether the landlord’s offer of redress was in line with the Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles: be fair, put things right and learn from outcomes.
22. Overall, this Service has seen evidence of maladministration by the landlord. However, the landlord has made appropriate efforts to put things right by offering an apology and compensation. The Ombudsman’s remedies guidance suggests that compensation over £1000 should be considered where there are significant failings by the landlord which had a seriously detrimental impact on the resident. The landlord therefore made an offer that was in accordance with this Service’s guidance and its offer of redress was satisfactory in putting matters right.
23. As the landlord has already offered this amount, a recommendation has been made for it to make the payment (£1500) if it has not already done so. The finding of reasonable redress is dependent on the compensation being paid.
24. This Service is aware that the resident was awarded a disturbance payment by the landlord of £3,364.74. Disturbance payments are made to compensate a resident for reasonable expenses in moving from a property. This payment is separate to the landlord’s compensation offer in its stage two response.

Determination

25. In accordance with paragraph 53b of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord has offered redress to the resident which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, reasonably resolves the complaint about the landlord’s handling of planned repairs and improvements in the resident’s property.

Recommendation

26. The landlord should pay the resident the £1,500 compensation that it has already offered. As above, the finding of reasonable redress is dependent on the compensation being paid.