Harlow District Council (202319949)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202319949

Harlow District Council

31 January 2025

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 response to the resident about the property condition and her repairs reports.

Background

2. The resident is a tenant of the landlord, a local authority. The resident moved into the property, which is a 1-bedroom bungalow, in September 2021. The landlord has recorded that the resident has vulnerabilities.
3. The landlord set up a limited company to deliver its repairs and maintenance service, and the complaint was responded to at both stages by the company acting on the landlord’s behalf. The landlord and this company are generally referred to as the landlord in this report.
4. In September 2021, the resident moved into the property, after the landlord completed a void inspection report in August 2021 that identified no works, apart from follow on works to a shed that needed to be raised by 8 September 2021. The resident signed a disclaimer that the landlord was not responsible to repair or replace a shed, decking areas, a non-standard kitchen, and fencing.
5. In January 2022, the landlord replaced loose bathroom tiles after a November 2021 report.
6. In April 2022, a repair was raised to fill in holes around some pipes and make good where a cooker hood was. The same month, a repair was raised for issues with a gate and later a fence panel, for which access issues were noted.
7. In May 2022, operatives replaced a storage tank after an April 2022 report. The same month, operatives renewed a shed downpipe, unblocked a gutter, refixed a rear gutter that was falling away from fascia, and recommended no follow on works.
8. In June 2022, an occupational therapist carried out an assessment and asked a local authority to process an application to reconfigure the resident’s bathroom. This was subsequently progressed from January 2023, and the landlord says a April 2023 start date was planned but the resident asked to postpone this for health reasons.
9. In February 2023 front fascia was refixed, front and side gutters were cleaned, and a further repair was raised to realign front and rear gutters, after an October 2022 report for fascia, gutters and tiles. It was noted that the further repair and the tile repair had access issues when attempted to be progressed between February and September 2023.
10. In April 2023, a repair was raised for damp and mould treatment. It was noted that this had access issues when attempted to be progressed between May and September 2023, as the resident only wanted afternoon appointments due to health issues.
11. In June 2023, a repair was raised for a kitchen cupboard, a door threshold, 2 windows not opening, and an insecure shower rail.
12. In July 2023, the resident’s account indicates that the shower rail was repaired. The same month, after cancellations of visits by the landlord and the resident, the resident was visited about the bathroom works. The following month, a contractor offered start dates of December 2023 or January 2024 for the works.
13. On 5 September 2023, the resident made a complaint.
    1. She noted that she was told no repairs were outstanding when she moved in, and said that repairs she had since reported showed that the landlord had not done its due diligence about this. She raised dissatisfaction with handling of some repairs, including the loose tiles not being treated as urgent, and some she was told required authorisation to be raised. She raised dissatisfaction with a lack of update about the bathroom works. She detailed outstanding repairs and said that she seeking for the landlord to complete repairs and put improvements in place so that issues did not happen again.
    2. The repairs the resident detailed included issues with a fascia board, a hole in the loft, kitchen cupboards, back and front doors, a gate, fencing, gutters, woodworm in the garden, pointing, a brick fence, garden slabs and debris, a hole in the living room doorframe area, windows, ceiling and wall plaster, outstanding asbestos surveys, damp and mould, a shower rail, the bathroom, a shed, insulation, damage to render when a new door was installed, and bushes in the garden.
14. On 28 September 2023, the landlord provided a stage 1 response from its repairs team.
    1. It explained that it completed works on empty properties before they were handed back, and that any follow on works were noted on a form. It apologised if anything was missed by it or its contractor.
    2. It provided explanation and reassurances about its approach for repairs, and said that repairs were raised immediately if its contact centre was contacted.
    3. It disputed that asbestos surveys were awaited and necessary for wall hole and shed works.
    4. It requested clarification about repairs the resident said she had been told required sign-off before they were raised, so it could investigate.
    5. It detailed previous actions for repairs. It apologised that the resident had issues with bathroom tiles for which works were completed in January 2022. It said that no further works were indicated when a shed downpipe was renewed in May 2022, but a repair would be raised for a surveyor to inspect reports of the shed falling apart. It noted that gutter repairs were completed in February 2023. It said that a fascia was refixed as this did not need replacing. It said that a housing officer had found fencing to have normal wear and tear at a July 2023 inspection. It noted that the resident questioned gel being used for a plastering repair, and explained that mastic was used to avoid drilling into plaster she felt was cracked, which it considered acceptable.
    6. It detailed the current status of repairs. It said that roof tile repair delays were partly due to the resident’s request for masks to be worn, which was not required outside. It said that repairs for a brick wall, pointing, and hole in the loft were cancelled due to the resident’s preference for afternoon appointments. It said an appointment had been made to attend that day for a June 2023 repair for a kitchen cupboard, missing threshold, 2 windows not opening, and insecure shower rail. It said a contractor would contact the resident about April 2022 repairs raised for a gate, holes around toilet and kitchen pipes, and to make good kitchen ceiling where a cooker hood was. It said that an April 2023 repair for damp works, that it had 9 months to attend, was now scheduled to 23 October 2023 due to the preference for afternoon appointments. It said repairs had been raised to repair a hole near a new door, and to inspect concrete slabs in the garden that the resident said were a slip hazard, and it had 60 working days to complete these.
    7. It said that gardens were tenant responsibility, so clearing the garden, cutting grass and dealing with ants and plants were the resident’s responsibility. It noted that staff had arranged an appointment with the resident to get access to her garden to deal with a neighbour’s bushes going into her garden.
    8. It said that it aimed to attend on 8 January 2024 about the new bathroom, that staff would liaise with the resident about this, and that a start letter would be sent nearer the time.
    9. It said that it partially upheld the complaint as there were some delays in carrying out repairs.
15. On 6 October 2023, the resident escalated the complaint, as she was unhappy that the complaint response had been provided by the company that the landlord set up to deliver its repairs and maintenance service,
16. On 16 October 2023, the landlord provided a stage 2 response from its repairs team. It said that it stood by its stage 1 response, but a repairs manager would contact the resident, and staff would assist in booking appointments for outstanding repairs.
17. The landlord arranged to visit the resident on 5 December 2023, which it then had to rearrange to 8 January 2024. The resident later cancelled this and asked to reschedule it. In February 2024, the landlord sought to reschedule the visit and contacted the resident’s support worker for assistance. On 20 March 2024, the landlord’s surveyor visited and created a list of works to complete when completing the bathroom adaptation works. The surveyor noted no issues with damp and mould, a brick wall, and woodworm. In May 2024, the landlord went through the works with a contractor, after which it is understood that a number of works were completed between September and December 2024.
18. These included a replacement bathroom in line with an occupational therapist’s report, a replacement kitchen, ease and adjustment of windows, repair to render by the front door, fascia replacement, rear gutter replacement, clearance and inspection of front and side gutters, inspection of damaged roof tiles, repair of a break in loft compartmentation, replacement of some radiators after a heat survey, plastering, ease and adjustment of a side gate, fence replacement, repairs to back and sides of a shed, removal of shrubs, and removal of concrete slabs.
19. The resident has restated dissatisfaction with the property and garden condition when let and the landlord’s handling of repairs reports, and raises dissatisfaction that fascia and gutter works have not been completed in line with what she was told.

Assessment and findings

Scope of the investigation

20. The resident has raised dissatisfaction with the property condition and repairs that she reported around the time that she moved into the property in late 2021. The Ombudsman expects complaints to made in a reasonably timely manner, normally within 12 months of them arising, in line with paragraph 42.c. of our Scheme, which sets out how we investigate complaints. This means that our investigation mainly focuses on events from October 2022, 12 months before the resident complained in October 2023.
21. The resident has raised dissatisfaction with issues with the works that were completed at her property in December 2024, and she also says some radiators that were not replaced are not as effective as new ones. The Ombudsman expects complaints to have been made to a landlord and exhausted their complaint procedure, in line with paragraph 42.a. of our Scheme. She has been advised to raise a complaint about issues that this investigation does not consider.

The landlord’s response to the resident about the property condition and her repairs reports

22. The evidence seen shows that in the 12 months before the resident complained, bathroom adaptation works were started to be progressed in January 2023 and initially aimed to commence in April 2023, before the resident reportedly asked to postpone the works for health reasons. In February 2023, repairs were completed for fascia and guttering, and in July 2023 repairs were completed for a shower rail.
23. However, difficulties were reported scheduling appointments for the front and rear gutters, a roof tile and damp and mould due to the resident’s ill health and preference for afternoon appointments, while actions for a kitchen cupboard, a door threshold and 2 windows not opening under the same works order as the shower rail are not clear.
24. In August 2023, the landlord’s contractor then offered start dates of December 2023 or January 2024 for the bathroom adaptation works after a July 2023 visit, before the resident then complained in September 2023.
25. The resident raised dissatisfaction about the property condition when she moved in and that all required repairs were not identified. The Ombudsman is unable to fully assess if it was appropriate that the property passed checks, or its suitability for vulnerable people, as the resident brought her complaint 2 years after she moved in. However, the evidence shows the landlord carried out some appropriate checks before she moved in. The Ombudsman understands her concerns about issues such as a storage tank, but we cannot see evidence that repair reports show significant failings in the landlord’s obligations or before she moved in, and the raising of issues after a tenant moves in as responsive repairs is normal. The landlord could have considered if shed works identified in a voids inspection report were raised, as this is not evident, but given the length of time its response was proportionate to provide explanation, apologise if anything was missed, and to confirm that a surveyor would inspect the shed.
26. The resident raised dissatisfaction that asbestos surveys were outstanding. The bathroom reconfiguration works may have required an asbestos survey before completion in late 2024, as this can be normal before major internal works, but it is not otherwise evident that an asbestos survey was or will have been required for any repairs. The landlord responded reasonably to this aspect by reviewing the issue and setting out its position.
27. The landlord’s response to apologise that the resident had issues with the bathroom tiles also seems reasonable, given the length of time, as while clearly distressing for the resident this related to events over 12 months before the resident complained.
28. The resident raised dissatisfaction with damp and mould. It is evident the landlord’s attempts to visit were delayed due to her ill health and preference for afternoon appointments, as it was felt mould treatment could not be done in an afternoon slot. It is not entirely satisfactory that solutions were not considered earlier given the issue, but the landlord subsequently arranged to do the treatment over several afternoons in a week in October 2023, which shows appropriate action was taken after the complaint. The resident disagrees with later findings that there is no damp and mould, but the landlord is entitled to rely on the professional opinion of its staff in its decision-making. She says there is currently damp and mould in the kitchen, which she has the option to report to the landlord to consider.
29. The resident raised dissatisfaction that a gel was used for a plastering repair. It is not uncommon for more minor holes in walls or ceilings to be repaired with substances such as filler. The landlord therefore responded reasonably to this aspect by reviewing the issue and setting out its position.
30. The resident raised dissatisfaction about ant hills in the garden, and contractors damaging brickwork when they installed a new front door, which she told us led to ants entering the property through the damaged brickwork and causing distress. The Ombudsman understands the distress ants entering the property will have caused the resident, but it is not clear that she reported this to the landlord before its response. The landlord’s complaint response was therefore reasonable to have said the ant issue was the resident’s responsibility, as this was in line with its policy and proportionate to the information it seemed to have at the time.
31. The resident raised dissatisfaction about being told that some works were major works. It was understandable that the landlord was unclear about what works these referred to, so it responded reasonably to this aspect by inviting the resident to clarify these so it could look into this further.
32. The resident raised dissatisfaction that complaint responses were provided by the company that the landlord set up to deliver its repairs and maintenance service. The Ombudsman can identify no service failings in the way that the landlord responded to the complaint. The landlord’s handling of the complaint at both stages of its procedure was in line with its complaint policy, and its approach is in line with our Complaint Handling Code.
33. The resident raised dissatisfaction with other repairs, as well as a lack of update for bathroom adaptation works. The landlord confirmed a January 2024 visit for the bathroom works and made commitments about progressing repairs and subsequently an inspection. It then inspected in March 2024 and completed many repairs alongside the bathroom works in late 2024. The landlord demonstrates it has now taken action to reasonably address the  repairs issues, and its event log indicates that it gave the resident the opportunity to have works completed earlier, and sought to complete them as quickly as possible.
34. It is also apparent that the landlord has completed works after first-hand inspection of issues raised by the resident. This shows that the landlord has made decisions about issues the resident disagrees with in an appropriate way. The landlord is entitled to rely on the professional opinion of its staff for its decision-making, and the Ombudsman sees no equivalent professional opinions to support the resident’s views for issues she remains unhappy with. While this is the case, some aspects of the landlord’s handling were not satisfactory.
35. The landlord’s recordkeeping is not entirely satisfactory. The Ombudsman had to make multiple information requests to obtain information for the timeframe of the complaint. The information provided is sometimes unclear, for example it does not clearly show why repairs for the kitchen cupboard, threshold and windows were not completed along with the July 2023 shower rail repair given these were under the same works order. The Ombudsman was also not supplied repairs logs for a brick wall, pointing, and hole in the loft. The Ombudsman made orders for record-keeping in a January 2024 determination that post-dates the timeframe of this complaint, so a recommendation is made in respect to this.
36. The resident raised dissatisfaction that some repairs were not treated with enough urgency due to health and safety risks. The landlord could have been more considered in its responses about garden debris, concrete slabs, and an insecure towel rail.
37. The resident is responsible for the garden, but it would not be reasonable to expect her to clear debris if this should have been cleared before she moved in, as the voids inspection report indicates. The landlord took subsequent action to clear the debris in the late 2024 works, but its initial response to deny responsibility before any apparent assessment of the issue was not satisfactory, given it posed a potential health and safety issue and it is aware the resident has physical issues that affect her mobility. This potentially lacked consideration of its obligations under section 20 of the Equality Act 2010.
38. The 60 day timeframe the landlord allotted and the 5 months it is evident it took to inspect concrete slabs that the resident said were a slip hazard comes across as lacking sufficient urgency, given it reportedly posed a potential health and safety issue and the resident’s issues that affect her mobility. Again, this potentially lacked consideration of its obligations under section 20 of the Equality Act 2010.
39. The insecure shower rail was reported in June 2023 and completed over a month later in July 2023. The landlord’s stage 1 response confirmed it would attend for current issues with the rail, but it is not satisfactory that it did not address the length of time the repair took and her claim that she had reported the shower rail falling on her multiple times. The July 2023 completion was also in excess of the 24 hour target timeframe for a priority 1 repair the issue was raised as.
40. The resident raised dissatisfaction with fascia and gutter repairs. The landlord completed February 2023 gutter and fascia works in a timely manner and it is not evident that further fascia works were identified, which the landlord’s response reflected. However, it did not acknowledge that some follow on works to realign the front and rear gutters were not complete. It is not evident this caused a wider significant impact, but it is not entirely satisfactory that further gutter works did not happen until late 2024, around 20 months after further gutter works were identified.
41. The resident raised dissatisfaction that the late 2024 fascia and gutter works were not done in line with what she was told, and there are discrepancies between what the landlord and resident say, indicating communication issues, which is not entirely satisfactory. However, it can be reasonable for scopes of works to change, and the landlord’s post-inspection of the fascia and guttering works shows it took appropriate steps to satisfy itself about these first-hand. It is not clear that there is any ongoing disrepair with the fascia and gutters that is causing detriment to the resident, therefore the landlord seems to have reasonably fulfilled its repairs obligations for the gutters.
42. The landlord generally refers to multiple repairs being impacted by access issues, and it is evident that repairs have often been impacted by the resident’s health and preference for afternoon appointments due to this. The resident’s ill health leading her to cancel appointments will be out of the landlord’s control, but it does not seem reasonable that if the resident reports repairs, she may often experience issues and delays due to her request for afternoon appointments. This potentially lacks sufficient consideration of the landlord’s obligations to make reasonable adjustments under the Equality Act 2010.
43. The landlord could consider if reports from the resident could be managed more effectively first–time, for example if normal practice is to combine repairs for the same trade, this could be reconsidered in the resident’s case if doing so may mean completing the repairs will exceed an afternoon timeslot. It is therefore recommended to review how it handles reports from the resident.
44. The landlord acknowledged that some repairs were delayed, some by over a year, but it did not provide reasons for all of them, or demonstrate that it considered if compensation was applicable for the delays. It is not evident that the outstanding repairs will have caused significant detriment, but this should have been a consideration for delayed repairs and issues with the shower rail repair that clearly caused the resident distress.
45. Overall, while the landlord experienced access issues, completed a number of works in late 2024 that reasonably resolved many issues, and sought to address the resident’s concerns in its responses, aspects of its response was not satisfactory.
46. The landlord’s record-keeping was not satisfactory. It does not demonstrate that the garden debris, concrete slabs, and shower rail issues were addressed reasonably. It did not acknowledge some gutter works were not complete, and further gutter works did not happen until around 20 months after the follow on works were identified. It did not show it considered compensation for acknowledged delays. It shows it took sensible action to complete many repairs alongside bathroom adaptations, but it did not demonstrate potential learning to try to handle future repairs reports from the resident in a more effective and timely way.
47. It is not clearly evident that the issues identified have had a wider, long lasting and significant impact, therefore the issues identified above leads the Ombudsman to find service failure in the landlord’s response about the property condition and repairs reports, and to order some compensation in line with our remedies guidance in recognition of the distress and inconvenience caused by the issues identified.

Determination

48. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure in the landlord’s response to the resident about the property condition and her repairs reports.

Orders and recommendations

49. The landlord is ordered to, within 4 weeks, pay the resident £200 in recognition of the distress and inconvenience caused by the issues identified.
50. The landlord is recommended to review its handing of, and timeframes allotted to, issues with health and safety implications such as the garden debris, garden slabs and damp and mould.
51. The landlord is recommended to consider whether reports from the resident could be managed more effectively, particularly repairs requiring more time than an afternoon appointment or multiple days to complete, and consider ensuring the outcome to this is effectively communicated to the resident and recorded internally.

1. The landlord is recommended to review its record-keeping and our spotlight report on knowledge and information management and consider improvements to its record-keeping, particularly repairs records, so that these are clearer, for its own purposes as well as the Ombudsman, in respect to actions that have occurred.