London Borough of Hillingdon (202439557)

Background

1. The resident lives with her daughter who is neurodivergent. The resident complained to her landlord about living in a building site, the lack of facilities and her human rights when work to replace her kitchen and bathroom were being carried out at the property.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s response to:
   1. the kitchen and bathroom replacement at the property
   2. the complaint

Our decision (determination)

3. There was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the kitchen and bathroom replacement at the property
4. There was service failure in the handling of the complaint

We have made orders for the landlord to put things right.

Summary of reasons

5. The landlord failed to carry out the bathroom and kitchen replacement in the timescales detailed. It did not repair a leak within the emergency timescale in its policy, provide evidence that the resident had access to basic facilities throughout the works or identify service failures relating to these.
6. Poor communication meant the contractor did not manage the resident’s expectations relating to the expected work timescales. The resident also had to chase the further repairs needed after the works sign-off.
7. The landlord did not address all the issued raised by the resident in her complaints and the record keeping of the landlord and its chosen contractor was poor.

Putting things right

Where we find service failure, maladministration or severe maladministration we can make orders for the landlord to put things right. We have the discretion to make recommendations in all other cases within our jurisdiction.

Orders

Landlords must comply with our orders in the manner and timescales we specify. The landlord must provide documentary evidence of compliance with our orders by the due date set.

Recommendations

Our recommendations are not binding, and a landlord may decide not to follow them.

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

What we found and why

The circumstances of this complaint are well known by the parties involved, so it is not necessary to detail everything that’s happened or comment on all the information we’ve reviewed. We’ve only included the key information that forms the basis of our decision of whether the landlord is responsible for maladministration.

What we did not investigate

8. The resident explained that during a visit with landlord’s project manager she raised issues about the behaviour of the contractors towards her. We have no evidence this was raised as a formal complaint. We have no power to investigate complaints which the landlord has not had the chance to put right first. This issue was not raised in the resident’s initial complaint or in her escalation request to the landlord. There is no evidence this complaint has completed the landlord’s internal complaint process. Therefore, we have no power to investigate this issue.

What we did investigate

9. The resident said she was initially told the work would take 1 and half weeks. The landlord provided a prestart document signed by the resident showing that she was informed the kitchen replacement could take up to 15 working days, however it also stated the kitchen and bathroom work would run concurrently. The work (excluding the snagging issues) was mostly completed in 26 working days; this was nearly double the original timescale provided. The landlord has not provided any evidence to show that it kept the resident updated or provided her with explanations for the delays. This caused her frustration as demonstrated by her calls and emails to the landlord on 26 September 2024.
10. The landlord has provided us with evidence from the contractor detailing that delays were caused as the resident would not allow access to the property until 10am each morning, that they were asked to leave the property on one occasion and that the resident would not communicate directly with the supervisor. This may have had some impact on the timescales, however, other evidence provided suggests that the contractor also caused delays. It shows that although work to the rooms overlapped slightly, it did not run concurrently, the bathroom was removed on a Friday leaving the resident without facilities over a weekend and there were several days when no work was carried out at all. In its stage 1 response the landlord said that in future it would warn residents that works could take longer. The landlord missed its opportunity to explain the delay or apologise for the impact on the resident.
11. The resident said she was left without drinking water, kitchen and bathroom facilities for 9 weeks, however the work appears to have been largely completed in just over 5 weeks. The resident said the mess from tools left in the property caused unsafe conditions and had a severe impact on her daughter as she could not go to the toilet unaccompanied.
12. When works of this level are carried out there is an expectation of some disruption and that residents will have to set up a kitchen in another area. It is also the landlord’s responsibly to ensure residents have reasonable access to basic facilities such as drinking water and a working toilet during the work. The landlord has not been clear whether appropriate facilities were provided. It stated, “It is the contractor’s responsibility to liaise with the resident, to ensure access to a temporary water supply, and manage all aspects of the kitchen and bathroom upgrade works”. While it is reasonable to rely on contractors in these circumstances, ultimately the landlord is responsible for any service failures because the actions of the contractor are the landlord’s responsibility. The resident explained that having no access to drinking water or a toilet was very distressing.
13. Following the work sign off, the resident contacted the landlord several times to ask when the snagging work would be completed. This shows that either the contractors were not carrying out the agreed work, or the landlord was not managing the resident’s expectations appropriately. In the stage 2 response the landlord stated that all the issues raised in the resident’s email of 24 November 2024 had been completed. The resident told us there is still work outstanding and that she had initially chased this but eventually gave up contacting the landlord as she found this too stressful.
14. A leak reported on 19 September 2024 was not rectified in a reasonable timescale as this was reported again by the resident 8 days later. It is not clear when this was finally repaired as the landlord has not provided this information. In its stage 1 response the landlord explained the leak was initially thought to have been caused when the bath was removed. It was later found to have been caused because the contractor had not installed the toilet correctly. This is a failure to meet the timescale set out in the landlord’s repair factsheet for emergency repairs to be completed within 1 working day. It also caused additional inconvenience to the resident due to further works being needed after the rooms had been signed off.
15. The resident told us she had made the landlord aware of her daughter’s vulnerabilities; however, the landlord stated it was not aware of these. The landlord did not provide details of all discussions with the resident during visits and calls. This gives the impression notes may not have been kept. We would expect landlords to keep full detailed notes of any conversation with residents and to make sure that its contractors do the same
16. There was also contradictory information provided by the landlord and contractor in relation to the complaint. For example, in the stage 1 response the landlord stated that the kitchen and bathroom were signed off on 26 September 2024, however the bathroom sign off inspection was dated 1 October 2024. Also, in the contractor’s schedule of work it stated the bathroom was stripped out on the 13 September 2024 however on the bathroom sign off inspection it stated the bathroom work started on 25 September 2024. This demonstrates poor record keeping by both the contractor and the landlord. A learning has been recorded in relation to this.
17. When investigating complaints, we look at all the evidence to decide if the landlord followed our dispute resolution principles to be fair, put things right, and learn from outcomes. It is positive that the landlord recognised the resident had been inconvenienced and offered her a goodwill gesture. However, it failed to acknowledge the impact the delay to repair the leak, the lack of basic facilities and poor communication had on the resident, nor did it identify any service failures. We have found maladministration and have ordered the landlord to apologise and pay the resident £100 in compensation for these failures. This is in addition to the £250 previously offered, if this has not already been paid. This is in line with our remedies guidance as the landlord’s actions did not reflect the detriment to the resident and were not proportionate to the failings identified by our investigation.

18. The resident raised her complaint on 17 September 2024. The landlord informed us that this was acknowledged 2 working days later. It requested an extension, and a stage 1 response was provided on 16 October 2024. This was in line with the timeframes in the Complaint Handling Code (the Code).
19. The resident escalated her complaint on 12 November 2024, and the landlord informed us that it acknowledged this 2 working days later. A stage 2 response was provided on 12 December 2024 within the timescales set out in the Code.
20. In its stage 2 complaint, the landlord did not fully address the residents reports of a lack of facilities or address her request for a rent refund. This does not comply with the Code and is therefore a failing on the part of the landlord.
21. We have found service failure in the handling of the complaint, because of the landlord’s failure to address all elements of the resident’s complaint. An order has been made in recognition of this, and learnings have been detailed for the landlord to consider for improvement to its complaint handling.

Learning

22. The landlord’s complaint handling could be improved by ensuring that it fully addresses all issues raised by residents when investigating complaints.

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

23. The landlord’s record keeping could have been better as it did not provide full records of discussions with the resident during the complaint. It also appears that the vulnerabilities and needs of the household were not requested or updated.

Communication

24. Communication with the resident was poor which resulted in her chasing up repairs. The resident did not appear to have any confidence that issues raised with the contractors would be resolved so contacted the landlord about these, leading to delays.
25. The contractor’s communication with the landlord was poor as it had difficulty obtaining accurate information from the contractors while the work was ongoing and during the investigation of the complaint.