London Borough of Croydon (202120044)

A blue and grey text

Description automatically generated

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202120044

London Borough of Croydon

16 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

The complaint is about the landlords response to the residents requests for:
1. Relocation of electric sockets in the bedroom, kitchen and lounge.
2. Installation of a new electric socket for a helpline box.
3. Bathroom renovation.
4. Improvement works in the kitchen, including:
  1. Installation of a washing machine.
  2. Renovation of the kitchen.
  3. Removal of electricity consumer unit (electric board) from cupboard.
  4. Replacement of the boiler.
  5. Removal of pipework.
The landlord’s complaint handling will also be investigated.

Background

The resident is a secure tenant of the landlord. The tenancy began in June 2021. The property is a first floor flat within a sheltered housing scheme. The scheme has a communal laundry room on the ground floor.
The resident is an older person. She has asthma and arthritis. English is not her first language. The landlord has told this service that it has offered support to the resident but she has declined this.
On 19 July 2021 the resident asked the landlord to install a washing machine point for a machine that she had purchased. She said she needed this due to a “health problem.”
The landlord inspected the kitchen in August, September and October 2021. There was a disagreement between it and the resident about the location it proposed for the washing machine. The resident said this would cause the machine to stick out, making it difficult to use the sink and cupboard. She was also unhappy about pipes, wires, a gas meter and an electric board inside the kitchen cupboards, reducing the amount of usable space, as well as the location of a wall in the kitchen.
On 4 November 2021 an operative attended the resident’s property but she did not want the work to go ahead as she wanted a gas pipe to be removed first so that the washing machine would not stick out.
The resident made a complaint to the landlord on 18 January 2022. She said that washing clothes by hand was making her ill.
The landlord’s stage 1 response, on 24 March 2022 said that it had “exhausted all options of works to enable your washing machine to sit flush.” It said that although the resident may not find this “cosmetically pleasing,” it would not cause a health and safety risk.
On 4 April 2022 the landlord’s contractor attended the resident’s property, but left without doing any work. The contractor informed the landlord if the washing machine was installed in the proposed location the resident would be unable to use the sink and there would be electrical safety issues.
On 6 April 2022 the resident told the landlord that she had been waiting 10 months for the washing machine to be installed. Additionally, the boiler had stopped working, she wanted a water tank and pipes removing, and she wanted the kitchen to be renovated.
The landlord carried out a further inspection on 6 December 2022. It wrote to the resident confirming it had already moved the gas meter outside earlier in the year. It would not move the electric board as this was not necessary. It was willing to carry out much of the other work requested by the resident, including removing the “redundant” gas pipe, the larder, the hot water tank and much of its pipework; concealing pipework and electrical wires in the kitchen; and upgrading the kitchen and bathroom in February or March 2023. It would liaise with its contractor regarding whether it was possible to move the boiler and expansion vessel, as part of the kitchen refurbishment.
The resident remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s handling of the matter, and following intervention by this Service, the landlord issued a stage 2 response on 6 February 2023. This said that the kitchen refurbishment was planned for spring/summer 2023 and the boiler upgrade was likely to take place in summer 2023. Once the old boiler had been removed the removal of pipework would be addressed and the larder would be refurbished. The electrical board was in good working order and it was “unlikely works [would] be undertaken soon.”
The resident remained dissatisfied and asked this Service to investigate.

Assessment and findings

Jurisdiction

What the Ombudsman can and cannot consider is called the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. This is governed by the Scheme. When a complaint is brought to us, we must consider all the circumstances of the case, as there are sometimes reasons why a complaint will not be investigated.
Paragraph 42.a. of the Scheme states that the Ombudsman may not consider complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion are made prior to having exhausted a member’s complaints 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.
After careful consideration of the evidence in accordance with paragraph 42.a. of the Scheme the following aspects of the complaint are outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction:
1. Relocation of electric sockets
2. Installation of new electric sockets for helpline box
3. Bathroom renovation.

Relocation of electric sockets

Under paragraph 42.a. of the Scheme, the landlord’s response to the resident’s request for relocation of electric sockets in the bedroom, kitchen and lounge is outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. The reason for this is because, whilst the landlord addressed this at stage 1, the resident said she did not want to escalate this to stage 2. Therefore, this matter has not exhausted the landlord’s complaints procedure.

Installation of new electric socket for helpline box

Under paragraph 42.a. of the Scheme, the landlord’s response to the resident’s request for installation of a new electric socket for a helpline box is outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. This is because this matter has not yet formed part of a formal complaint to the landlord.

Bathroom renovation

Under paragraph 42.a. of the Scheme the landlord’s response to the resident’s request for bathroom renovations is outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. This is because this matter has not yet formed part of a formal complaint to the landlord.

Improvement works in the kitchen

The landlord has a duty under section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 (LLTA) to keep in repair the structure and exterior of the property, as well as installations such as boilers, pipes and electrics. The duty to repair under section 11 LLTA is acknowledged in the tenancy agreement, which states that the landlord has a right of access to the property to inspect, and to carry out repair work. The landlord must give 24 hours notice in writing, unless it is an emergency, in which case it may enter immediately. However, tenants have a general obligation to co-operate with the provision of reasonable access and not to obstruct the landlord in carrying out inspections and repair work
The landlord does not have a legal duty to carry out improvements, alterations or renovation. However, the government’s Decent Homes Standard, set out in the 2006 publication ‘A Decent Home: Definition and guidance for implementation,’ sets out minimum standards for social housing in England. The standard includes a “reasonably modern” kitchen (20 years old or less) with adequate space and layout.
The Ombudsman would expect a landlord to keep a robust record of contact with residents, repairs and improvement work. It is vital that landlords keep clear, accurate and easily accessible records to provide an audit trail. If this Service investigates a complaint, we ask for the landlord’s records. In this case the evidence provided has not been comprehensive. Therefore, if there are disputed facts and no audit trail, we may not be able to conclude that an action took place or that the landlord followed its own policies and procedures.
On 19 July 2021 the resident emailed the landlord asking for it to install a washing machine point for a machine that she had purchased. She said she needed this due to a “health problem”. The landlord replied on 20 July to say that she would need to fund a plumber herself. On 26 July the resident told the landlord that, as she was an older person, living alone and without support, she did not know how to find a plumber.
Although the landlord was not obliged to install the washing machine point (this was an improvement, rather than a repair), it attended the resident’s property to carry out an inspection on 4 August 2021. It was appropriate that it was prepared to consider installing the washing machine point in response to the resident’s statement that she needed this for health reasons, and was unable to arrange this herself.
Between 4 August and 17 August 2021 the resident emailed the landlord multiple times regarding her request for a washing machine point. She said that she could not use the communal laundry room as she had skin allergies, the room was misused by “outside people” and was unhygienic. Additionally, it was difficult to use in winter due to the distance from her flat.
No evidence had been seen by this Service that the landlord replied to the resident’s emails in August 2021 to make clear what steps, if any, it intended to take as a result of the inspection, and when. This was poor communication on the part of the landlord. It failed to manage the resident’s expectations, leading to frustration and distress.
Furthermore, no evidence has been seen by this Service that the landlord contacted the resident to discuss her report that people were misusing the communal laundry room, or that it investigated this. This was inappropriate.
The landlord did not respond to the resident’s emails in August 2021 or seek to address the reasons why she did not use the communal laundry. However, it carried out a further inspection on 3 September 2021, during or after which it said that it would install a washing machine point.
On 11 October 2021 the resident emailed the landlord to say she disagreed with the location that had been proposed for the washing machine, as this would cause the machine she had purchased to stick out. This would make it difficult for her to use the sink and cupboard. She wanted a gas pipe and her cooker moving to make a space for the washing machine. She was also unhappy about pipes, wires, a gas meter and an electric board inside the kitchen cupboards, reducing the amount of usable space. She wanted a wall in the kitchen removing.
On or around 26 October 2021 a contractor inspected and provided a quotation to relocate the gas meter and pipework from the kitchen to outside the property. Although the landlord was not obliged to move the gas pipe, it was appropriate that it was willing to consider doing so, and arranged an inspection to establish whether it was possible, and how much it would cost.
On 27 October 2021 the landlord’s stock conditions surveyor attended the property to inspect the kitchen. The landlord’s internal emails state that the inspection was not completed as the resident was “agitated.” However, the surveyor stated that the kitchen was up to the Decent Homes standard. The surveyor noted that there was a pipe preventing installation of a washing machine, the resident wanted a store cupboard and walls knocking down, and had complained about pipes taking up space in the base unit.
On 4 November 2021 an operative attended the resident’s property to carry out alterations to the pipework so that the washing machine could be installed. The work did not go ahead as the resident wanted the gas pipe to be removed first so that the washing machine would not stick out.
It is clear that there was disagreement between the landlord and the resident about work to be done in the kitchen, including whether or not the gas pipe should be removed to make space for the washing machine, and whether other pipes, wires, the gas meter and electric board should be moved from inside the kitchen cupboards. No evidence has been seen that landlord clearly communicated to the resident what works it was willing to undertake, or why it had decided not to go ahead with the works quoted for by the contractor on or around 26 October 2021.
The landlord therefore failed to effectively communicate with the resident, and failed to manage her expectations. This led to the resident experiencing frustration and distress, and a breakdown in the landlord/tenant relationship.
On 18 January 2022 the resident complained to the landlord, saying that:
1. She had repeatedly asked it to carry out works but it had not done so. The works needed were:
  1. Removal of gas pipe to make space for washing machine.
  2. Replacement of a kitchen cabinet.
  3. Renovations near the sink.
2. She was 70 years old, “suffering with [grief] and anxiety” and washing clothes by hand was making her ill.
Between 2 March and 15 March 2022 emails were exchanged between the resident and the landlord regarding the washing machine installation. The resident maintained that she wanted the landlord to remove the gas pipe, otherwise the washing machine would stick out and block part of the kitchen sink and a cabinet. This would make it difficult for her to use the kitchen. She repeated that she could not use the communal laundry room due to a skin allergy, but had been unable to hand-wash clothes since Christmas due to being unwell.
The landlord said it would not remove the gas pipe as it was “live” and the work to install the washing machine would be carried out in April 2022 without doing so. It was appropriate that the landlord made clear that it would not remove the gas pipe, but it is unclear whether it responded appropriately to her concerns regarding the washing machine sticking out and making it difficult for her to use the kitchen. Its internal correspondence states that it told the resident she could get a smaller washing machine, and this would not stick out, but no evidence has been seen of this.
On 16 March 2022 the landlord’s contractor attended to carry out electrical works needed to issue a satisfactory Electrical Installation Condition Report (EICR). The contractor told the landlord that the resident would not let them complete the work as she said she had been promised that the electric board would be moved out of the kitchen cupboard. She was concerned that the location was dangerous.
The landlord’s internal correspondence states it had told the resident that she was not supposed to store items in the electric board “enclosure,” although no evidence has been seen of this. There is no evidence that the landlord appropriately communicated with the resident about whether it would remove the electric board. It therefore failed to appropriately manage her expectations.
On 24 March 2022 the landlord responded to the resident’s complaint at stage 1, as follows:
1. It set out the works it would carry out to enable installation of the washing machine.
2. It would not be possible to move the gas pipe as it was “live,” and the landlord had “exhausted all options of works to enable your washing machine to sit flush.”
3. Although the resident may not find this “cosmetically pleasing,” the location of the washing machine would not cause a health and safety risk.
4. It suggested that the resident exchange the washing machine for a smaller one.
5. The works to install the washing machine had been postponed until April 2022, at the resident’s request.
6. It acknowledged that the works had not been arranged within a reasonable timescale and apologised for this, and any inconvenience caused.
It was appropriate that the landlord clearly set out what works it would carry out. However, it did not acknowledge or respond to the resident’s concerns that the washing machine would block part of the kitchen sink and a cabinet, making it difficult for her to use the kitchen. It therefore failed to understand or address the reason behind the disagreement between it and the resident about the location of the washing machine. This was poor complaints handling and meant that the complaint was not satisfactorily resolved.
On 4 April 2022 the landlord’s contractor attended the resident’s property to carry out works in preparation for installation of the washing machine, but left without doing any work. The contractor informed the landlord that “previous inspections failed to highlight if this washing machine is installed the machine will protrude half way across the sink the resident would be unable to use the sink – that is without the safety issues of an electrical appliance going across a sink.”
It was a failing on the part of the landlord that it had not identified at an earlier stage that the planned position for the washing machine would cause safety issues, and mean that the resident would be unable to use the sink. This is particularly disappointing given that the resident had told the landlord that she would not be able to use the sink or cupboard.
On 6 April 2022 the resident emailed the landlord’s complaints team saying that she had been waiting 10 months for the washing machine to be installed. The records provided by the landlord show no response to this and no further communication regarding the washing machine until October 2022, when the resident emailed the landlord’s complaints team saying that:
1. The boiler had stopped working.
2. She wanted them to remove a water tank from the store room.
3. The flat was full of “extra” pipes, including a gas pipe in the washing machine space.
4. She could not wait for the kitchen to be renovated.
No evidence has been seen that the landlord communicated with the resident about what it intended to do after its contractor had left without completing the works in April 2022. No evidence has been seen that it responded to the resident’s email in October. This was especially inappropriate given that the resident had told it the boiler had stopped working. This would have left the resident not knowing what the landlord planned to do for a prolonged period, causing frustration and distress. The landlord said in its stage 2 response that it wrote to the resident in November 2022 (it does not say what about), but no evidence of this has been provided to this Service.
It is unclear from the records provided whether the boiler was inspected or repaired by the landlord following the resident’s email in October 2022, although there is no further communication from the resident about this.
On 6 December 2022 the landlord inspected the resident’s property to investigate “resident’s request to remove existing copper and steel barrel pipe works, gas heating boiler, brick-built larder cupboards and electrical head supply prior to new kitchen installation.”
On 20 December 2022 the landlord emailed the resident stating:
1. Its responsibility was limited to bringing the kitchen and bathroom up to the Decent Homes standard.
2. It had moved the gas meter outside earlier in the year.
3. It was not necessary to move the electrical supply unit and consumer control unit as the existing electrical installation was “fit for purpose and up to the modern Safety standard.”
4. The landlord and its contractor had recently met with the resident “to try and find a way forward.”
5. The further work it was willing to do was:
  1. Remove the “redundant” gas pipe.
  2. Remove the larder.
  3. Conceal most of the pipework in the kitchen behind base units and cabinets.
  4. Remove surface mounted electrical trunking from the kitchen and chase into the kitchen walls, as part of the kitchen refurbishment.
  5. Remove the hot water tank and much of its associated pipework.
6. It would liaise with contractor to see if it was practical to move the boiler and expansion vessel, as part of kitchen refurbishment.
7. It would not:
  1. Chase electric wires into the walls, other than in the kitchen and bathroom.
  2. Chase radiator pipes into walls.
8. It hoped to do the kitchen and bathroom upgrade in sometime February or March 2023.

It was appropriate that the landlord clearly set out for the resident what its responsibilities were, and what work it was and was not willing to do.

In December 2022 and January 2023 resident sent several emails to the landlord, and to this Service, copying in the landlord, reminding it of the work she wanted it to do, which included:
1. Renovation of kitchen.
2. Removal of gas pipe from washing machine space.
3. Removal of water tank.
4. Replacement of boiler.
5. Removal of “extra unrelated” gas and water pipes. She stated that water pipes from the downstairs flat ran through her flat and these were noisy and smelly.
6. Removal of electric board from kitchen cabinet.
No evidence has been seen that the landlord responded to the resident’s emails in December 2022 and January 2023, which was poor communication on the part of the landlord.
Following intervention from this Service, the landlord issued a response under stage 2 of its complaints procedure on 6 February 2023 stating:
1. The works the resident had requested were improvements not repairs.
2. There was currently no outstanding repair work.
3. The kitchen refurbishment was planned for spring/summer 2023.
4. The boiler upgrade was likely to take place in summer 2023.
5. The larder would be refurbished after the boiler was removed.
6. The electrical board was last tested in May 2022, was in good working order, and it was “unlikely works [would] be undertaken soon.”
7. It had contacted the resident on a number of occasions, including “written communications in November, a telephone call on 7 December 2022 …, a joint visit to your property on 9 December 2022 ….and a telephone call …. on 25 January 2023” to explain that works would “be completed in line with scheduled works to the whole block, not carried out to your property individually.”
8. Once the boiler was removed, the removal of pipework would be addressed.
The landlord was correct that the works requested were improvements rather than repairs. However, it had agreed to carry out the washing machine installation in August/September 2021 and it was therefore responsible for doing this within a reasonable period of time. As this still had not been done by February 2023 it was inappropriate that the landlord did not acknowledge and explain the long delay and set out what it intended to do to put this right. It was appropriate that the landlord gave the resident an idea of what other works it was willing to carry out, and when.
No evidence has been seen that the landlord responded to the resident’s report that the water pipes to the downstairs flat were noisy and smelly, or carried out an inspection of this. Noisy and smelly water pipes may have indicated disrepair and it was inappropriate that the landlord did not inspect this.
The landlord told this Service in July 2024 that it anticipated all works to the kitchen would be complete by the end of that month. The resident has since confirmed that the kitchen has been renovated, the washing machine has been installed, the water tank has been removed, the boiler has been replaced and the electric board has been moved. However, the water pipes from the downstairs flat vibrate when the neighbours use water, this is noisy and gives her a headache. The resident has stated that the length of time she had to wait for the works to the kitchen to be completed, and having to chase the landlord to carry out the works, has been very stressful and this has made her feel depressed.
Considering the landlord’s handling of improvement works in the kitchen overall, although the landlord was willing to carry out improvement works at the request of the resident, numerous failings have been identified, including:
1. Poor communication:
  1. Not consistently responding to communication from the resident. Whilst it is appreciated that the resident sent a high volume of emails to different individuals and departments within the landlord, it should have had systems in place to ensure that these were all logged, delegated to a member of staff with responsibility for responding, and appropriately responded to.
  2. Failure to clearly communicate what works it would and would not do, and by when, in order to manage the resident’s expectations.
2. Failure to identify and respond to reports by the resident requiring investigation, including:
  1. Misuse of communal laundry.
  2. The resident’s concern about the washing machine jutting out and blocking use of the sink.
  3. Boiler not working.
  4. Noisy and smelly water pipes.
3. Delays in carrying out works once it had agreed to do them.
Cumulatively, the failures identified above constitute maladministration on the part of the landlord. This caused inconvenience and distress to the resident. The landlord has been ordered to apologise and pay £450 compensation to the resident in recognition of this. The landlord has also been ordered to undertake a review of learning from the case. It is hoped that this will improve the landlord’s service in future.

Complaint handling

The landlord’s complaints policy current at the time provided a maximum of 20 working days to respond to stage 1 complaints. The policy stated that if the complaint could not be“resolved on the spot,”the landlord must acknowledge the complaint within 5 working days and provide a full response “in the remaining time left.” The policy allowed the investigating officer to “set and agree a reasonable and appropriate revised timescale, and regularly keep the customer up to date on its progress,” if the investigation took longer than 20 working days. The same timescales applied to stage 2 complaints.
Although the timescales in the landlord’s policy were not in line with the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (The Code), the landlord has since informed this Service that its complaints policy have been updated and is now in line with the Code. Therefore no order has been made to this effect.
The resident’s initial complaint to the landlord was made by email on 18 January 2022. This was not logged and acknowledged by the landlord within 5 working days, in breach of its policy. This Service intervened on 8 February 2022 to ask the landlord to raise and respond to the complaint.
The landlord provided a stage 1 response on 24 March 2023, 47 working days after the resident’s complaint. This was more than double the time allowed by the landlord’s complaints policy, with no contact to the resident from the investigating officer to acknowledge the complaint or agree an extension of time. This caused frustration and distress and contributed to the breakdown in the landlord/tenant relationship.
The stage 1 response showed a lack of empathy, in that it did not mention the resident’s health issues or acknowledge the impact on her of the issues she had complained about. The apology, which stated “I am sorry that you have found cause to complain,” was worded as being forced and insincere.
On 4 and 6 April 2022 the resident emailed the landlord, copying in its complaints team, to say that she had been waiting 10 months for the washing machine point to be installed, and was unhappy with how this had been handled so far. On 4 April 2022 the landlord told her that its complaints team would be in touch regarding this, but no evidence has been seen that this happened. This was a failing on the part of the landlord. The landlord did not escalate the complaint to stage 2, in breach of its complaints procedure.
This Service emailed the landlord on:
1. 28 April 2022 – asking it to respond to the resident regarding installation of the washing machine and layout issues in the kitchen by 6 May 2022.
2. 26 October 2022 – asking it to respond to the resident within 5 working days. On the same day the landlord sent this Service a copy of a stage 1 response regarding a different complaint (relocation of electrical sockets).
3. 14 December 2022 – confirming that the resident’s complaint was about installation of a washing machine, “disorder in the kitchen” and exposed pipework and asking it to escalate the complaint to stage 2.
4. 19 January 2023 – asking for it to respond to the resident by 26 January 2023.
The landlord issued a stage 2 response on 6 February 2023, following a delay of 9 months, despite several requests by this Service to respond. This was extremely poor complaints handling. The delay in escalating the complaint caused a delay in the resident being able to refer the complaint to the Ombudsman for investigation, therefore delaying resolution to of complaint.
The stage 2 response apologised for the delay, which was appropriate. However, the apology for the substantive issue again lacked sincerity, stating “I am sorry that you have found cause to complain.” There also was a lack of empathy shown, as the landlord did not acknowledge the impact of the delays in completing works and complaints handling on the resident, or the time and trouble she had taken to pursue the complaint.
Considering the landlord’s complaints handling overall, numerous failings have been identified, including:
1. Late acknowledgement of the complaint at stage 1.
2. Late response to the complaint at stage 1.
3. 9 month delay in escalating and responding at stage 2.
4. Lack of empathy and sincerity.
Cumulatively, the failures identified above constitute maladministration on the part of the landlord. The landlord has been ordered to apologise and pay £250 compensation to the resident in recognition of her time and trouble pursuing the complaint. The landlord has also been ordered to undertake a review of learning from the case. It is hoped that this will improve the landlord’s service in future.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in relation to the landlord’s response to the resident’s requests for improvement works in the kitchen.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in relation to the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

Within 4 weeks of the date of this report:
1. A senior officer of the landlord, at minimum Director level, must apologise to the resident for the impact of its failures, having regard to the Ombudsman’s apologies guidance.
2. The landlord must pay the resident compensation of £700, broken down as follows:
  1. £450 for the resident’s inconvenience and distress arising from its response to her requests for improvement works to the kitchen.
  2. £250 for the resident’s time and trouble pursuing the complaint.
In accordance with paragraph 54.g. of the Scheme, the landlord must undertake a review of learning from this case. Specific attention should be given to:
1. Responsiveness to communication from the resident regarding requested repairs, alterations and improvements.
2. Ensuring mutual understanding in communication with residents.
3. Management of resident expectations.
4. Oversight and management of works to ensure that works are carried out within a timely manner.
5. Compliance with complaints policy process and timescales.
6. Ensuring residents understand how to make and escalate a formal complaint.
7. When and how the landlord will incorporate the findings of the review into its day-to-day operations.

The landlord must share a written report of its findings with the resident and this Service within 8 weeks of the date of this report.

Recommendations

It is recommended that relevant staff involved in this case undertake complaint handling learning from our Centre for Learning (https://www.housing-ombudsman.org.uk/centre-for-learning/key-topics/complaint-handling/).