Basildon Borough Council (202125438)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202125438

Basildon Borough Council

20 September 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

1. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of:

1. Repairs to the resident’s flooring following a flood.
2. The associated complaint.

Background

2. The resident is a tenant of the landlord.
3. On 21 July 2021, the resident reported that due to poor weather, his property had flooded, damaging his kitchen and hallway floors. The landlord attended on 23 July 2021, to assess the damage. It also provided a dehumidifier to the resident to help dry out his floors. The flooring repairs were approved in September 2021. The resident has stated that he received an email in September 2021 explaining that his repairs were due to be completed in November 2021.
4. The resident raised a complaint on 7 September 2021, as he was dissatisfied with the length of time it had taken to schedule his repair. His complaint also stated that he felt the flooring was unsafe due to containing asbestos, and that the dehumidifier which the landlord had provided had incurred a further expense for him that he could not afford. The resident complained again on 10 September 2021, after he had received his appointment date of 17 November 2021. He felt that a delay of four months to his repairs was unacceptable.
5. In its complaint response, the landlord apologised for its lack of clear communication concerning the delays to repair appointments. It explained that it was experiencing a backlog of repairs caused by the covid-19 pandemic. It also promised to inspect the resident’s flooring, to check it was safe from asbestos. After the resident escalated the same complaint in October 2021, the landlord responded by assuring the resident that its repairs team had attended the property and made the flooring safe. It also apologised to the resident, as it had given an incorrect date for an inspection. It explained that November 2021 was still its earliest available appointment.
6. Contractors attended the property in November 2021 to complete work to the resident’s damp course (a layer of waterproof material in the wall of the building near the ground, to prevent rising damp). The damp course had to be completed before the new floor could be laid, which delayed the repairs further. The resident escalated his complaint again, as he was unhappy with this further delay. The resident was given a new date of June 2022 for the new floors to be fitted. In January 2022, the resident informed the landlord that due to the delay in repairs, he had undertaken works to the floors himself (the nature of his repairs is not apparent). He stated that this was both inconvenient and costly.
7. In response to the resident’s complaint the landlord apologised for the delays, which it acknowledged were unacceptable. It stated that its contractor had been to the property to assess if the repairs could be brought forward, but had been unable to gain access or contact the resident (the resident denies this). The landlord apologised for not rebooking this appointment with the resident. It explained that, to remedy this issue, it had highlighted the importance of communication to its repairs team, so that future repair appointments would not get missed. The landlord also brought the resident’s appointment forward from June 2022 to February 2022, and offered £30 compensation, in recognition of the extra expense from running the dehumidifier. The landlord offered a further £50, to compensate the resident for his time and inconvenience.
8. In his complaint to this Service, the resident explained that he was unhappy with the amount of compensation he had been offered. He has also said that the repairs remain outstanding, however, the landlord has told this Service that it has since completed the repairs in February 2022.

Assessment

Scope of investigation:

9. In his complaint to the Ombudsman the resident explained that the circumstances of his complaint caused him and his family considerable anxiety, distress, and has affected their health and mental wellbeing. The Ombudsman is not able to draw conclusions on the causation of, or liability for, impacts on health and wellbeing, and such matters are more appropriately considered as a personal injury legal claim against the landlord. However, the Ombudsman will consider the steps the landlord took in response to the residence complaint, and the general inconvenience of the situation to the resident.

The landlord’s handling of repairs to the resident’s floors:

10. The tenant’s handbook states that floor tiles which have been fitted by the landlord in kitchens and hallways are the landlord’s responsibility. According to the same handbook, repairs such as in this case would be classed as routine, non-urgent repairs. They should be arranged at the convenience of the tenant, but work should be completed within 28 days.
11. In this case, the landlord acknowledged that there were delays in undertaking the repairs to the resident’s flooring. It apologised for the “unacceptable” delay and explained that it was experiencing a backlog in repairs, due to covid-19. While the delays may have been out of the landlord’s control, it was still obligated to communicate with the resident about them, and manage his expectations. Good customer service and repair practice would be for the resident to have been informed of why his repairs were delayed, before having to raise a complaint. He should also have been informed of the subsequent steps the landlord took to progress the repairs, as this would have allowed him to appreciate that things were happening, albeit slowly. The landlord’s failure to communicate appropriately with the resident about the delays to his repairs was a failing.
12. While the landlord had little control over the initial delays to repairs, basic good practice would be to consider if there were any interim or short-term remedies for the flooring issues. The landlord did take steps to support the resident by providing a dehumidifier to combat the damp in July 2021. However, the records show it was removed in August 2021, after it had been in the property for three weeks. Both the resident and the landlord have stated that the property remained damp until at least January 2022. The landlord should have considered if its interim solutions had been properly utilised, as the continued dampness indicated that its assistance may not have been wholly effective. There is no further evidence of any assessment of the resident’s situation while he waited for the repairs, or consideration of any other interim measures the landlord could take. In the circumstance of what was apparently considerable water penetration, that was a further failing.
13. The landlord’s tenancy handbook states that where a resident wishes to undertake repairs or improvements, they are required to gain written permission from the landlord. It further states that “tenants won’t be compensated for redecorating their homes, or for fittings such as new flooring etc.” The landlord will only pay compensation on qualifying improvements where the tenant has written permission to do the work. There is no evidence to suggest that the resident gained permission to undertake repairs himself. While it is understandable that his frustration with the delay led to him to do so, the landlord did not agree to the repairs, or agree to compensate for any expense incurred. As a result, it was reasonable for the landlord to have not offered compensation to the resident for this aspect of his complaint. 
14. In its complaint response, the landlord acted reasonably in that it explained how it had investigated the resident’s concerns about asbestos, removing any damaged tiles from the property. It also acknowledged its lack of communication and explained how it had learnt from its mistakes. It apologised for the delay and acknowledged that the proposed date of June 2022 for the final repairs was unacceptable. The landlord acted reasonably in bringing the repairs forward to February 2022. In the absence of any specific evidence of the cost, its offer of £30 compensation for the extra expense of running the dehumidifier was also reasonable.
15. However, while the repair delays were outside of the landlord’s control, the landlord failed to manage the resident’s expectations or communicate reasonably. It also failed to mitigate the resident’s situation by considering more effective interim solutions. The length of the delay was considerable, and so the importance of good communication and managing the resident’s expectations was more relevant than would be so for a shorter delay, or where the repair issue was less major. In that circumstance, the £50 compensation offered to the resident cannot reasonably be considered proportionate or in line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance. Accordingly, the resident’s complaint was not properly remedied.

The landlord’s complaint handling:

16. The landlord’s complaint’s procedure states that it has a discretionary stage” zero” that, with the resident’s permission, can be applied informally to address a resident’s complaint. The landlord did not ask permission from the resident to log his complaint at a stage zero. It also did not apologise to the resident once it was clear that he was unhappy that his complaint had not been logged formally. This is not in line with the landlord’s own complaints policy.
17. Once a resident submits a complaint, the landlord’s complaint’s procedure states that they can expect a response within ten working days. If the landlord expects the response to take longer, it will notify the resident within ten working days of receiving the complaint. While most of the landlord’s responses were within these timescales, the landlord’s stage three response in February 2022, was sent three months after the resident’s escalation in November 2021. The landlord did notify the resident of the delay, however two months had already lapsed at the point it did notify him. That was a further failing, as it is not within the landlord’s own policy guidelines, or basic good customer service.
18. As a member of this Service, the landlord has agreed to adhere to the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code). The Code sets out that “a [complaint] process with more than three stages is not acceptable under any circumstances in the Ombudsman’s view”. The Code was implemented to guide landlords to a simpler complaint procedure and to make the process more efficient. It is evident that including a stage zero and a stage three in its complaint procedure is not appropriate, as this, effectively, amounts to four stages. This is again a failing.
19. The landlord’s addition of the informal stage and its delay in providing its final response made the overall complaints procedure more protracted and uncertain for the resident, who was already experiencing delays to his repairs. The resident should have been clearly communicated with in the stated timescales, in order for him to feel that his complaint would be resolved appropriately. The landlord failed to acknowledge its poor complaint handling, or provide any form of remedy to the resident.

Determination (decision)

20. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure in the landlord’s handling of repairs to the resident’s floors.
21. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Orders

22. Within four weeks of the date of this report the landlord is ordered to:

1. Pay the resident £200 in recognition of the failings identified in respect of the landlord’s handling of repairs to the resident’s floors. This is in addition to the £80 previously offered by the landlord, which should also now be paid, if the landlord has not already done so.
2. Pay the resident £100 in recognition of the failings identified in respect of the landlord’s complaint handling.

Recommendations

23. The landlord should consider reviewing its complaint’s procedure, particularly the use of a fourth stage in its complaint process, to ensure it is in line with the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code.