Basildon Borough Council (202010721)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202010721

Basildon Borough Council

27 April 2022

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 handling of repairs to a broken skylight following a storm in January 2020.

Background and summary of events

At the time of the complaint, the resident held a secure tenancy of a one bedroom flat with a garden. He has since moved to alternative accommodation with the same landlord. The complaint was made by the resident’s father who has consent to act on behalf of the resident. The resident is a vulnerable adult known to adult social services with diagnosed mental health issues including paranoid anxiety disorder. Both individuals are referred to below as ‘the resident’.
During a strong storm on 14 January 2020, the resident’s skylight was damaged. Rain was entering the property and the property was cold as it was exposed to the outside elements. The resident reported this to the emergency out of hours service. The landlord said an operative attended that night but was unable to get access but this is disputed by the resident.
A temporary repair was made on 15 January 2020 which the resident said was below a reasonable standard since although the window was boarded up, there was a 50mm gap exposed to the outside air. The resident said this made the property very cold and it was expensive to pay for extra heating which was supplied on a meter. The resident also said that the temporary fix was not secure as although the window was boarded up, the board could be pulled away relatively easily by anyone wanting to get inside and the frame it was attached to was rotten.
On 29 January 2020, the resident made a complaint regarding the roof repair. The resident said his son had been taken advantage of and the operatives had not done an acceptable repair job. The resident said that the old broken window had been left on the roof and that this constituted a serious health and safety risk. The resident said that operatives had already attended three times to measure up the windows but had not done anything further and asked for the repairs to be done to an acceptable standard as soon as possible. The resident also requested compensation for the extra cost of the heating.
The resident was contacted by phone by the landlord’s repairs team on 6 February 2020 who apologised and said an operative would attend the following day to measure for a replacement window.
The resident chased the progress of his complaint on 7 and 9 February 2020 saying that the landlord was showing a lack of care for his son. Since the landlord had not remedied the gap to his satisfaction, the resident plugged the gap in the board himself using insulation wool.
On 11 February 2020, the landlord said that there would be an ‘unavoidable delay’ in the complaint response since it needed to obtain consent for the father to act on behalf of the resident. This consent was provided to the landlord on 12 February 2020 and the deadline for the response was extended to 25 February.
The resident approached his local MP on 12 February 2020 for assistance. The resident later said that the MP had been misinformed by the landlord regarding the repairs and objected to the description of the gap in the window as ‘small’ since the gap was significant in draining heat out of the property.
On 18 February 2020, the property was visited by heating engineers. The engineers said that the heating system was functioning correctly although it was not on at the time of the visit due to a lack of credit. The engineers expressed concern to the landlord about visitors the resident had at his property at the time of the visit.
The landlord did respond at stage one by the 25 February 2020 but the date of the response is not known as this response has not been provided by the landlord. Although the response has not been seen in full, the landlord later acknowledged at stage two that the stage one response did not cover some of the key issues raised by the resident such as the gap in the boarding and the request for compensation.
On 27 February 2020, the resident escalated the complaint setting out his reasons for the escalation as follows: the gap in the board was not mentioned in the response, there was no apology for the ‘substandard’ repair, no compensation was mentioned, there had been a failure to plug the gap as the resident had requested, the resident said the ‘main thrust of the complaint’ had therefore been ignored. The resident also said that the landlord had not carried a post-inspection of the work or met its commitment to monitor a contracted out repair for a vulnerable tenant.
The property was visited again on 13 March 2020. The landlord said that further works were required to the roof before the replacement window could be installed.
The stage two complaint response was provided on 27 March 2020 following another extension of the deadline for response. The landlord accepted that there had been a ‘lack of communication and delays’ regarding the repairs to the skylight. It said that it would consider the amount of compensation to be offered after the repairs were completed. The landlord confirmed at stage two that all routine repairs were stopped due to Coronavirus and this delayed completion of the skylight repair since the roof could not be renewed to make it safe for the skylight repair.
The resident escalated his complaint again on 27 March 2020 saying there had been no apology from the landlord for the health and safety risks his son was exposed to by leaving the old window on the roof or for not carrying out the post-work inspection. The resident also said that the gap in the window remained and expanding foam had not been used as the landlord had incorrectly informed his MP.
Concerns were raised about the resident’s property by the police during April and May 2020. The police advised the landlord that the window was insecure at the resident’s property and that it was investigating anti-social behaviour (ASB) at the address. The police said that individuals that the resident had befriended were taking advantage of him and using the property for drug use. The police said these people had been obtaining access to the property via the skylight.
An ASB case was logged and assigned on 16 April 2020. On 6 May 2020, the landlord said that a management transfer was under consideration. These matters have been complained about and investigated separately by the Local Government and Social Care ombudsman.
Two incidents occurred in May 2020. On 12 May, the resident had a brick thrown through his window. A management transfer (to alternative accommodation) was approved the same day. The resident was offered temporary accommodation but this was declined. It is not clear if the reason for this was that the resident felt he was not at imminent risk or because the temporary accommodation did not accept tenants with pets since the resident had a dog.
On 13 May 2020, the resident was the victim of a second incident described as a ‘home invasion’. The resident returned to his home to find six people using drugs. After he asked them to leave, they threatened him with violence. The following day, the resident was assaulted and went to hospital with a head injury. The resident was placed in temporary accommodation on 14 May following this incident.
The landlord sent a stage three complaint response on 4 June 2020. The landlord offered £250 total compensation in recognition of service failures. This was categorised by the landlord as additional heating costs and discomfort suffered £100, lack of communication £50, length of time waiting for temporary repair to be finished £60, the resident completing the temporary repair £40.
The landlord claimed that photographic evidence indicated that the repair that was initially made was acceptable and must have been tampered with. This is disputed by the resident who says that the photograph does not accurately show the situation due to the lighting and angle at which it was taken.
The resident approached the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman (LGSCO) following completion of the internal complaints process of a separate complaint about ASB and social care initially made in May 2020. The LGSCO found failure in the landlords handling of these incidents and awarded a total of £500 compensation to the resident.
The resident returned to his flat from the hotel temporary accommodation on 11 June 2020 but following a partial roof collapse in August, the resident was offered permanent accommodation in August 2020.
The resident has said that the incidents of home invasion are ‘directly attributable’ to the substandard repairs since the board used for the temporary repair could easily be ripped off. There is no evidence that the skylight repair was completed before the resident was moved and the resident says it was not completed.
On 24 November 2021, the resident confirmed the outstanding issues of his complaint to this service which relate to the landlords handling of the repair of the skylight.

Assessment and findings

This investigation has focused on the outstanding issues of the complaint as clarified by the resident in his email to this service of 24 November 2021. These are matters directly relating to the repair of the skylight. It is noted that the resident has previously raised concerns regarding the landlords handling of the resident’s social care assessment, anti-social behaviour reports from the police and the resident’s level of priority for rehousing. These issues have been investigated by the LGSCO already. These matters have however, been fully taken into consideration when considering the impact of the landlord’s failure to carry out an effective and timely repair of the skylight.
The resident’s tenancy agreement states that the landlord has a responsibility to maintain the exterior and structure of the dwelling. This includes all windows and door as well as the roof itself. Section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 places a statutory obligation on the landlord to keep the structure and exterior of the property in repair. In addition to the statutory obligations, the landlord also has a responsibility to ensure the property is free from hazards as defined under the Housing Health & Safety Rating System (HHSRS). The HHSRS identifies ‘excess cold’ as one of the potential hazards that need to be addressed. In the final complaint response, the landlord accepted that both the gap in the boarding and the boarding itself were a cause of heat loss at the property.
The landlord has accepted that there was communication failure and delay regarding the repair of the skylight. The landlord’s repair records show that the broken skylight was reported out of hours on the 14 January 2020 and there is no evidence that the full repair was completed by the time the resident moved at the end of August 2020.
There is no record of a permanent repair being carried out to the skylight despite the landlord saying on 4 June in its final complaint response that “once the council can resume undertaking repairs your son’s window and adjoining roof repair will be given the highest priority.”
While it is acknowledged that the Coronavirus restrictions played a mitigating role during this seven month period, including a cessation of routine repairs, the landlord had sufficient opportunity to carry out an effective repair in the period before the ‘lockdown’ period began in March 2020 and when restrictions eased in July 2020.Given the known vulnerability of the resident, it would have been reasonable of the landlord to give the repairs higher priority. However, due to the nature of the roof work required and the Covid restrictions at the time, it is understandable why the repairs were delayed within the period from March to July 2020. While the total delay on the repair was seven months, four of these months can be considered unavoidable delay.
In addition to the delay and the failure to carry out the final repair, the landlord has also acknowledged that there was an increased health and safety risk to the resident caused by leaving the old window on the roof of the property from January 15 until 27 January 2020 when it was removed. The landlord and its contractor have apologised for this and said the window should have been reported for removal at the earliest opportunity.
The nature of the temporary repair carried out by the landlord remains in dispute to some extent. The resident says the repair was substandard because there was a gap in the boarding where the flat was exposed to the outside air. The landlord claims that the temporary repair was carried out correctly on 15 January 2020 and has suggested that the repair may have been ‘tampered with’ shortly afterwards. The landlord has provided the resident with some photographic evidence of this, but the resident says is not conclusive due to the lighting used and angle at which it was taken.
Based on the evidence seen by this service, there is no way of ascertaining the quality of the temporary repair. However, the landlord’s repair records do clearly show that an instruction was given on 13 February 2020 to the repairs team to ‘fill holes in boarding’ and the landlord has acknowledged that the operative did not do this because by the time he attended, the resident had already carried out his own repair. The landlord has also clarified that even though the initial repair may have been carried out correctly, it “does not negate that after 15th January 2020 the council failed in the service provided to your son when a gap was reported.”
The resident has also said that the boarding was not secure since it was screwed into a rotten frame and could be easily pulled away. The incidents of home invasion that occurred in May 2020 further evidence that the home was not secure. The information from police and internal information obtained during the landlord’s complaint investigations evidence that individuals did gain entry to the resident’s property via the broken skylight. Urgent action should have been taken by the landlord once this was known.
It is not possible to prove a direct causal link between the failure to carry out a timely repair and the home invasion which took place in May 2020. There are many other factors which could have contributed to the incident and it would be speculative to try and pinpoint what these were exactly. However, there is evidence that access to the property due to the insecure boarding of the window was a contributing factor.
Given the known vulnerability of the resident, the concerns about visitors at the property from heating engineers attending the property on 18 February 2020, as well as the information received from police later in the year, the landlord had sufficient information and reasons to give the repair to the skylight a higher level of priority than it did and to make sure the property was safe and secure. There is no evidence that the landlord considered input from the community mental health team or social services on the individual circumstances of the resident when considering how to prioritise the repair.
The service failures highlighted above have had a significant impact on the resident. Given the resident’s known mental health issues with paranoid anxiety disorder, having a temporary fix in place for an extended period of seven months was an unacceptable level of service even with the Coronavirus restrictions during this time. Ensuring the home was secure should have been a higher priority for the landlord.
There is no information from Environmental Health Services to prove ‘excess cold’ as defined in the HHRS, but it is clear that the resident was exposed to increased cold for a period of three or four weeks before the resident took his own measures to plug the gap in the boarding. The resident has pointed out that the boarding itself was only a temporary fix and even if the temporary repair had been carried out correctly (as the landlord has suggested), the resident would still have been exposed to increased cold not only for 3 weeks but for the whole period from January to August 2020.
No information has been seen regarding the cause of the partial roof collapse in August 2020 which led to the resident being moved to alternative accommodation. However, one of the reasons for delay in the repair being carried out was that the roof was not considered safe enough for work to be carried out on the skylight. Notes on the landlord’s repair records say that an operative attending said on 27 February that “works could (not) be completed as roof was unsafe. This will need renewing.” This is again an indication that the landlord was not alert at an early stage to the risks and hazards at the address and did not make meaningful attempts to address the warning signs or carry out preventive works that may have stopped the partial roof collapse in August. Overall, it would therefore be fair to characterise the landlord’s actions as reactive rather than pro-active in responding to the issues at the address and this case may provide learning for the landlord to take on board.
The final complaint response indicates that the landlord did try and learn from the mistakes that had been made. For example, the out of hours procedure was modified to try and ensure that problems such as not removing the old window from the roof would not be repeated. The landlord has therefore acknowledged some failures and taken some steps to learn from mistakes and put things right in accordance with the Housing Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles.
However, the compensation offered by the landlord to date is not sufficient to put right the impact of what has gone wrong. In addition to the specific impact on the resident as a result of these failures such as increased heating costs, there are other factors less easy to calculate such as the distress of having a home insecure with only a temporary fix for a seven-month period and eventually having to move home due to the roof collapse including a period spent in temporary accommodation.
It is noted that the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman has already ordered the landlord to pay compensation of £500. However, this was for a separate complaint made in May 2020 regarding the handling of the social care assessment and reports of anti-social behaviour.
The compensation offered to date to the resident for the skylight repair is £250. This has been categorised by the landlord as additional heating costs and discomfort suffered £100, lack of communication £50, length of time waiting for temporary repair to be finished £60, the resident completing the temporary repair £40.
Housing Ombudsman guidance indicates that payments of between £250 and £700 should be made where there has been failure over a considerable period of time to act in accordance with its policy.
The landlord’s repairs policy was not provided to this service and was not found on their website which shows only a policy from 2016 regarding rechargeable repairs. A recommendation about this has been made below.
Given the significant detriment to the resident including increased cold, likely impact on known mental health issues, and that the lack of repairs contributed to traumatic incidents of home invasion that occurred in May, compensation at the highest end of this band rather than the low end should be made and therefore an order for £700 total compensation has been made in recognition of the acknowledged service failures.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman scheme, there was maladministration in the landlords handling of repairs to a broken skylight following a storm in January 2020.

Reasons

The landlord has acknowledged service failure for delays and a lack of communication for the repair of the skylight. Although the landlord has offered the resident some compensation for these failures, it is not sufficient given the significant impact of the failures on the resident and his vulnerability.

Orders

It is ordered that the landlord offer the resident £700 minus any compensation already paid out of the £250 compensation offer made on 4 June 2020.
It is ordered that the Landlord carry out a case review to identify learning and improve its working practices with regard to carrying out repairs for vulnerable tenants. The findings should be shared with this service within six weeks.

Recommendations

It is recommended that the landlord reviews the repairs content on its website.