Basildon Borough Council (202323484)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202323484

Basildon Borough Council

29 November 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

1. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of leaks to the resident’s wet room.

Background

2. The resident holds a secure tenancy with the landlord. She lives at the property with her 3 young children. The resident and her children have health issues which the landlord is aware of. A family member of the resident’s assisted her in bringing her complaint to the landlord and to the Ombudsman. For ease of reference, both the resident and her family member have been referred to as ‘the resident’ in this report.
3. The landlord’s repair records show that the resident reported on 16 August 2018, that the shower in her wet room was not draining properly. On 17 August 2018, the landlord’s records show that the issue was causing leaks to the room underneath the wet room. On 6 and 15 August 2019, the resident reported again that the wet room was not draining properly. On 6 June 2021, the resident reported to the landlord that there was a leak coming from the wet room into the downstairs hallway near the front door. She told the landlord the ceiling had started to bow due to the amount of water. The landlord replaced PVC boxing and applied sealant.
4. The resident told the Ombudsman that in August 2022 she reported to the landlord that water was leaking through the ceiling again. She said that the contractor who attended, inspected the ceiling and said it would hold. This report is not recorded on the landlord’s repair records.
5. On 6 September 2023, the resident reported to the landlord that there was a leak coming from the wet room. The landlord’s contractor attended the same day. It raised works for a separate contractor to clear the waste pipe.
6. The resident reported to the landlord on 16 September 2023, that the leak from the wet room had flooded onto the landing. She reported that one of her children had received an electric shock while using the sink in the wet room. Shortly after making the report, the resident’s foot went through the floorboards while she was trying to take photographs of the damage. The landlord’s contractor attended the same day and identified that the floorboards outside the bathroom were rotten, and that water had leaked through the light fitting in the dining room. The contractor made safe the wiring to the light and told the resident that water conducting electricity under the floorboards may have been the cause of the electric shock. They tested the electrics and made sure these were safe. Another contractor attended and unblocked the shower. The resident said that the contractor told her she would need to report the hole in the floor to the landlord after the weekend.
7. The resident complained to the landlord on 17 September 2023. She told the landlord that she was struggling to cope with the repairs needed to the property. Her children were young and had special needs. She said:
   1. She had only been able to shower one of her children per day as it took so long for the flooding in the wet room to drain away. The flooding had caused extensive damage and the floorboards outside the bathroom were rotten and she was frightened that one of her children could fall through the floor.
   2. The ceiling under the wet room had a hole in it. She had to keep a bucket and towels by the front door to mop up the water which leaked through the ceiling. She was frightened to use the light as water had leaked through it. The landlord’s contractor said that this was what had caused the electric shocks she and her child had experienced.
   3. The property had lots of mould and was not fit for habitation in her view.
8. On 18 September 2023, the resident reported to the landlord that the floorboards outside the wet room had given way causing the ceiling in the dining room to collapse. The same day the landlord told the resident that it believed her complaint to be resolved, and it had closed her complaint. Its contractors had confirmed they had tested the electrics and found these to be safe and had raised works to make the floor safe. A plumber was due to attend on 26 September 2023 to repair the leak. The landlord told the resident that if she wished to escalate the matter, she would need to raise a formal complaint.
9. The resident complained to the landlord again on 18 September 2023. She said the issue was not resolved. The ceiling was still soaking wet and could fall onto her children. Her 2 eldest children had started to have panic attacks due to the floorboards giving way. She asked that the landlord provide written confirmation that the property was safe, had no hazards and was considered fit for habitation. She asked the landlord to provide all reports of visits to the property carried out by its contractors and requested that it include details of all necessary works and works completed. She said that the landing and stair carpet was ruined and requested that the landlord replace this once the repairs to the wet room had been completed.
10. On 19 September 2023, the landlord’s contractor removed the rotten floorboards and made the floor safe. On 21 September 2023, the contractor changed the wash basin taps and replaced the showerhead. They also resealed around the shower.
11. The resident confirmed to the contractor on 25 September 2023, that there had not been any further flooding. She said that water was still collecting under the radiator in the wet room, however. The contractor said it would arrange to attend to the water which was leaking through the ceiling by the front door.
12. On 27 September 2023, the resident complained again to the landlord. She said she had not had a response to her complaint. She said:
    1. Thelight fitting still needed replacing.
    2. The temporary floor meant that a cupboard door no longer closed and had been removed. The new flooring was wet. Nothing had been done about the hole in the ceiling near the front door, the ceiling was still wet, and she was worried it would collapse.
    3. The landlord should provide her with records for all the repairs she had reported over the past 5 years, works undertaken or reasons why work was not done. She reiterated her request that the landlord provide all contractor reports covering the past 2 weeks, all works undertaken to make the property safe and habitable and the timescales in which all the work would be completed.
    4. The landlord should either replace the carpet or reimburse her for the cost of replacing the carpet.
13. On 27 September 2023, the resident informed the landlord that its specialist drainage contractor had called her at 3pm to say they were outside her property. She had asked the landlord previously to never arrange appointments between 2.30pm and 3.30pm as this was when she picked her children up from school. She had had to rearrange this appointment for the following day. The drainage contractor attended the resident’s property on 28 September 2023 to inspect the drain in the wet room as the resident reported that this was still not fully draining away.
14. The landlord issued its stage 1 complaint response on 3 October 2023. It apologised to the resident for the delay in it completing repairs thus far and set out dates work had been completed. It said it was waiting for its drainage specialist’s report as to why water was not draining from the wet room. Once it had this report it would schedule any necessary repairs to the drain. It said it had arranged for its contractor to remove and replace a section of ceiling in the resident’s property. The target date for this work to be completed was 28 days. It advised the resident that she would need to make a claim for the replacement of her carpet on her home contents insurance.
15. The resident escalated her complaint to stage 2 of the landlord’s complaint procedure. The copy of the escalation request provided to the Ombudsman is undated. The resident reiterated her request for full details of the repairs she had reported since she moved into the property and all the contractors’ reports. She again asked the landlord to confirm there were no hazards in the property and that it was fit for habitation. She said there was exposed asbestos in the property. The 28-day time frame the landlord had given her for the removal of the asbestos was not acceptable. Her children were breathing in asbestos fibres every day. She had not received a copy of the specialist drainage contractor’s report, however when the contractors attended her property they had suggested a full refit of the wet room. She did not have contents insurance and requested that the landlord should replace the carpet.
16. The resident submitted a further complaint on 9 October 2023. She said she had not received a response to both of her complaints. She had not received the information she had requested in relation to the dates and details of all repairs she had reported since she had moved into the property.
17. The landlord issued a stage 1 complaint response to the resident’s complaint of 9 October 2023, on 19 October 2023. It said it had responded to both her complaints. It had sent her an early resolution complaint response on 18 September 2023 and a stage 1 complaint response on 3 October 2023. It had logged her request for dates and details of all repairs as a freedom of information request.
18. The resident told the Ombudsman on 29 October 2023, that the shower was leaking through the ceiling above the front door again, and she was worried that the ceiling would collapse. She reiterated her concerns about the exposed asbestos.
19. On 1 November 2023, the landlord sent the resident a copy of its records setting out all the repairs she had reported since moving into the property.
20. The landlord issued its stage 2 complaint response on 9 November 2023. It apologised for the delays and inconvenience the matter may have caused the resident. It said:
    1. It had provided her with information in relation to all the repairs she had reported since moving into the property. One of its contractor’s supervisors had confirmed that the property was safe and habitable. It apologised for not confirming this to her sooner.
    2. It had booked the removal of the asbestos and the replastering of the ceiling for 24 and 27 November 2023. It acknowledged that its original target for removing the asbestos had been 28 days, however it had not been able to meet this target due to high demand.
    3. It had not received any recommendations that it should renew the wet room floor.
    4. As the resident did not have contents insurance, she could submit a liability insurance claim to its insurance team. This team would advise as to whether she could claim for the costs of replacing the carpets.
21. On 12 and 14 November 2023, the resident complained to the Ombudsman. She said the landlord should replace the wet room. The number of times it had leaked, showed it was not fit for purpose. The wet room still leaked if her children pointed the shower downwards. It was not possible to supervise her children each time they took a shower. The landlord should investigate a crack that had appeared in the wet room since it last flooded. It had not treated the mould by the front door caused by the constant leaks. The landlord had not reattached the cupboard door, nor had it replaced the temporary light fitting. The landlord should replace the carpet. The repair records the landlord had sent her were minimal and it had not provided any copies of its contractors’ reports.
22. The landlord told the Ombudsman on 10 June 2024, that it was in the process of installing a new bathroom in the resident’s property.
23. On 25 November 2024, the resident told the Service that the landlord had not installed a new wet room, it had replaced her downstairs toilet. She said water still did not drain away properly in her wet room and collected under the sink and the radiator. She said there was no longer mould by the front door. The landlord had replaced the dining room and hallway ceilings. However, she said the toilet in the wet room was leaking, the dining room doorframe was bowing and the glass pane above the door was unstable and unsafe. There was a hole in the wall by the front door which the landlord had completed a repair to, however this had not been done properly. There were leak stains to the decoration by the front door. The resident said the cupboard door the landlord had taken off when it replaced the floor was still in her children’s bedroom and had not been replaced. The smoke alarm in the hallway was hanging off and had not been reattached after the ceiling was replaced. The landlord had not replaced the temporary light fitting.

Assessment

Scope of investigation

24. The resident has reported leaks to her wet room since 2018. There is no indication that the resident made a formal complaint about the leaks prior to her complaints of September 2023, (the Ombudsman would usually expect such issues to be brought to the attention of the landlord as a formal complaint within 12 months of the matters arising). The Ombudsman encourages residents to raise complaints with their landlords in a timely manner, so that the landlord has a reasonable opportunity to consider the issues whilst they are still ‘live’, and whilst the evidence is available to reach an informed conclusion on the events which occurred. As the substantive issues become historic it is increasingly difficult for either the landlord, or an independent body such as the Ombudsman, to conduct an effective review of the actions taken to address those issues. Therefore, although the historic events give context to the more recent issues, this investigation focuses on the landlord’s handling of the leak to the wet room after the resident’s report of 6 September 2023. However, it is clear that this was a longstanding issue, and the landlord would have been expected to take this into account in its response to the resident’s complaints.
25. As noted above, the resident has told the Ombudsman that a wall at the end of her garden is bowing, and some bricks are loose, the toilet in the wet room is leaking, her dining room doorframe is bowing and the glass pane above the door is unstable and unsafe, there is a hole in the wall by the front door that the landlord has not repaired properly, and there are stains to the decoration by the front door as a result of the leaks. As these issues have not been escalated via the landlord’s complaint procedure, they have not been considered in this assessment. This is because the Ombudsman is not able to consider complaints that are made prior to having exhausted a landlord’s complaint procedure. This is so that landlords have the opportunity to respond to complaints and resolve issues before the Ombudsman becomes formally involved. If the resident wishes to pursue these matters further, she can complain to the landlord. She may be able to refer her complaint to the Ombudsman once it has exhausted the landlord’s complaints process. However, the Ombudsman recommends that the landlord carry-out an inspection of the garden wall, the wet room toilet, the dining room doorframe and glass pane, the hole by the front door, the stains to the decoration, and complete any necessary repairs.
26. The resident mentioned in her complaint that her health and the health of her children, were affected by the landlord’s handling of the leaks to her wet room. This Service does not doubt the resident’s comments about her and her family’s health. However, it is beyond the Ombudsman’s remit to consider whether there was a direct link between the landlord’s actions or inaction and her and her children’s health. We have considered any distress and inconvenience the resident may have experienced due to any errors by the landlord as well as the way in which the landlord responded to the resident’s concerns about her and her children’s health.

Policies and procedures

27. The landlord is obliged to maintain the structure and exterior of the resident’s property
28. The landlord’s residents’ handbook states that the repairs it is responsible for include: major plaster work, ceilings which have a textured coating, drain and waste pipe blockages, and light fittings. The handbook states that it will respond to emergency repairs within 2 hours to make the property safe where there is a danger to people. The handbook states that the landlord will attend to routine repairs within 28 days.
29. The landlord’s complaint’s policy has 2 stages. However, the policy states that it will try and resolve matters informally in the first instance where the resident has agreed to this and where it is possible to resolve the complaint within 3 working days. If a complaint cannot be resolved informally, its policy states it will automatically progress the matter to stage 1 of its complaints procedure. It states that it will respond to both stage 1 and stage 2 complaints within 15 working days.

The landlord’s handling of the leaks to the resident’s wet room

30. The resident told the Ombudsman she first reported to the landlord that her foot had gone through the floor on 16 September 2023. The landlord’s repair records of 16 September 2023 state that the floorboards outside the wet room were rotten. The landlord’s records show its contractors made the floor safe on 19 September 2023. However, the rotten floorboards presented a risk to the resident and her children, were they to give way, particularly as the evidence suggests the resident had already put her foot through them. It would have been reasonable therefore, for the landlord to install temporary flooring on 16 September 2023, the date it became aware of the rotting floorboards. If it was not able to do so, it would have been reasonable for the landlord to consider offering the resident temporary alternative accommodation until such time as it could make the floorboards safe. The fact that the landlord did not carry-out an immediate temporary repair of the floor or offer alternative accommodation, was a failing which will likely have caused the resident considerable distress as well as time, trouble and inconvenience.
31. The landlord acted unreasonably in responding to the resident’s complaint of 17 September 2023, as an informal complaint. Its complaints policy, set out above, states that it will deal with matters as an informal complaint, where the resident has given permission for it to do so and where the issue can be resolved within 3 working days. The Ombudsman has not been provided with evidence to show that the landlord sought the resident’s permission to allow it to deal with her complaint informally. Nor had the landlord resolved the issues the resident had complained about when it sent her its early resolution complaint response on 18 September 2023. The resident’s reports of leaks to her wet room causing rotting floorboards, were a serious matter that would require an in-depth investigation in order to issue an adequate response. The fact that the landlord initially dealt with the resident’s complaint informally would have caused her inconvenience as she had to contact it again to progress her complaint to stage 1 of its procedure.
32. The resident told the landlord in her complaint of 17 September 2023, that there was water leaking down through the ceiling above the front door. She raised concerns again with the landlord in her complaint of 27 September 2023. The landlord’s repair records of 27 September 2023, show that it identified that the ceiling in the hallway needed replacing. However, it did not respond to the resident’s concerns about the leaks to the hallway ceiling in its complaint responses. This was a failing which may have given the resident the impression that it was not taking her concerns seriously.
33. As noted above, on 27 September 2023, the resident reported to the landlord that its specialist drainage contractor called her at 3pm to say they were outside her house. The resident informed them she was picking up her children from school and the appointment was rearranged for the next day. The landlord’s repair records clearly state that it should not arrange appointments to attend the resident’s property between 2.30pm and 3.30pm. It is important that the landlord pass on details to its contractors of any regular times when residents will not be at home to avoid causing time, trouble and inconvenience.
34. The specialist drainage contractor found on 28 September 2023, that the shower was not blocked and recommended that a plumber attend to identify the cause of the leak. The landlord has not provided the Ombudsman with evidence to show that it arranged for a plumber to inspect the wet room following the drainage contractor’s visit. This was a failing. On 25 November 2024, the resident told the Ombudsman that water in her wet room still does not fully drain away and continues to collect under the sink and the radiator. Therefore, the landlord is ordered to undertake a further inspection of the wet room and carry-out any recommended repairs to address the water not draining away as it should. If the landlord is unable to carry out any of the recommended repairs, it should explain why to the resident and set out what alternative repairs it will carry out to fix the drainage issue.
35. The resident raised concerns that there was exposed asbestos in the property in her stage 2 complaint. She also said that the landlord’s initial target to remove asbestos within 28 days was too long and it did not remove the asbestos for over 2 months. The Ombudsman asked the landlord to provide copies of any asbestos reports it carried out before and after the removal of the asbestos in the ceiling. It has provided an asbestos report of 2011 but nothing further. Without copies of asbestos reports covering the period of the resident’s complaint, the Service cannot conclude that the exposed asbestos was unsafe. However, the Ombudsman would expect to see that the landlord had commissioned an asbestos report prior to the removal of the asbestos and the landlord has not provided it with evidence that it did so. It is good practice that when any removal of asbestos is needed, that landlords commission specialist asbestos contractors to identify any risks. It is accepted that in its stage 2 complaint response of 7 November 2023, that the landlord confirmed to the resident that the property had remained safe and habitable. However, given that the resident raised concerns about exposed asbestos and the length of time it was taking to remove this, it would have been reasonable for the landlord to specifically address this aspect of her complaint, setting out why it believed that the asbestos did not present a risk to her or her children. The fact that it did not do so was a failing which will have likely caused the resident considerable worry and distress.
36. The landlord asked the resident to complete a freedom of information request in relation to the repair records and contractors reports she had requested from it. This was reasonable, particularly as the resident had asked for records dating back 5 years. The landlord was entitled to use its freedom of information process in relation to this request as it needed to check whether there were records that may have contained personal information about other individuals which it needed to redact. The resident has told the Service that the landlord has not provided all the contractors reports she requested from it. It is outside the Ombudsman’s role to consider whether the landlord has provided all the records the resident requested. If the resident wishes to pursue this matter further, she can contact the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO). The ICO can investigate whether a landlord has complied with its duties under a freedom of information request.
37. The resident complained to the landlord that its contractors told her that the wet room needed replacing. The Service does not doubt the resident’s testimony; however, we have not seen evidence that the contractors advised the landlord that this was the case, and the landlord can only be expected to act on information it is given. Landlords are not obliged to replace wet rooms or bathrooms if they can resolve issues by completing repairs as this ensures value for money and reduces costs which would otherwise be passed on to residents through their rent and service charge. However, the landlord told the Ombudsman in June 2024, that it was in the process of replacing the bathroom and it appears that this was not in fact the case. This is a concern. It is vital that landlords keep clear and accurate records. If we investigate a complaint, we will ask for the landlord’s records and we rely on the information it provides to complete our investigations. It is recommended that the landlord review its record-keeping systems so that it can provide accurate records to the Ombudsman, when required.
38. The resident has told the Service that the landlord has not replaced the cupboard door or the temporary light fitting. The fact that it has not done so over a year after the resident complained about these issues, will have caused her time, trouble and inconvenience. The landlord has a responsibility to make good any damage after it has carried out repairs. The landlord is ordered to repair or replace the cupboard door and to replace the temporary light fitting. The resident has told the Service that the landlord has not reattached the smoke alarm after completing repairs to the ceiling. Although the resident has not reported that the smoke alarm is not working, smoke alarms which are not correctly attached may develop faults. The landlord is therefore ordered to reattach the smoke alarm and to ensure that this is working correctly.
39. The resident complained to the landlord that there was damage to her carpet caused by the leak. The landlord acted appropriately in advising the resident she could submit a liability claim to its insurance department if she believed that it was liable for this damage. Matters of liability and negligence fall outside the complaints process and the landlord is entitled to use a separate insurance process to deal with complaints of this nature. It is outside of the Ombudsman’s role to investigate liability insurance claims because the landlord’s insurer is a separate organisation from the landlord and the Ombudsman cannot look at the actions of insurers, only at the actions of the landlord.
40. The resident complained to the landlord that the leaks to the wet room were affecting her health and her children’s health. It would have been reasonable for the landlord to look at whether it could take any steps to support the resident and/or refer her to other agencies who may be able to provide support. It would also have been appropriate for the landlord to advise her that she could pursue a personal injury claim with its liability insurer should she wish to do so for damage to her and her children’s health. The landlord should pass on its insurer’s details to the resident now so she can make a claim if she wants to. As above, it is outside the Ombudsman’s remit to comment on the outcome or handling of insurance claims and therefore we could not comment on the actions of the landlord’s liability insurer if a claim is made to it.
41. It is appropriate that the landlord has acknowledged and apologised for its delays in completing repairs in this case. However, it has not offered the resident any financial redress for its failings in its handling of the repairs. The Ombudsman’s remedies guidance, published on our website, sets out our approach to compensation. Where maladministration has been identified which adversely affected the resident, the guidance states that £100-£600 compensation should be considered. The landlord is ordered to pay the resident £300 compensation for its failings in its handling of the leaks to her wet room.

Determination (decision)

42. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the leaks to the resident’s wet room.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

43. The landlord is ordered to do the following within 5 weeks of the date of this report ensuring that the Ombudsman is provided with evidence of compliance by the same date:
    1. Undertake a further inspection of the wet room. The landlord should share the findings of the inspection with the resident and the Ombudsman in writing. The landlord should carry-out any recommended repairs following the inspection, in line with the timescales in its repairs policy.
    2. Repair or replace the cupboard door and replace the temporary light fitting. It is also ordered to reattach the smoke alarm and to ensure that this is working correctly.
    3. Pay the resident £300 compensation for the distress and inconvenience caused by its handling of the leaks to her wet room.

Recommendations

44. It is recommended that the landlord:
    1. Carries out an inspection of the garden wall, the wet room toilet, the dining room doorframe and glass panel, the hole in the wall by the front door, and the stains to the decoration in the hallway and complete any necessary repairs. The inspection should be completed within 5 weeks of the date of this report.
    2. Reviews its record-keeping systems so that it can provide accurate records to the Ombudsman, when required.
    3. Passes on its liability insurer’s details to the resident so she can make a claim if she wants to, in relation to her and her children’s health.