Brighton and Hove City Council (202012680)

A picture containing font, text, graphics, logo Description automatically generated

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202012680

Brighton and Hove City Council

27 June 2023

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 landlord’s response to the resident’s reports in relation to repairs.

Background and summary of events

The resident occupied the property, a one-bedroom, ground floor flat within a house converted into four flats. The tenancy, which was a secure tenancy, had begun in 1995. The landlord had recorded the resident had mental health issues.

Legal and policy framework

The landlord did not provide the terms and conditions of the tenancy agreement however under Sections 9a and 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985, the landlord had a number of repair obligations as a matter of law. These obligations were reflected in the repair handbook as follows:
1. To look after the structure of the property, including the chimney brickwork and windows.
2. It was not responsible for internal doors, cookers, utilities, or internal decorations.
3. Ensure that fixtures and fittings for water, sanitation, gas and electricity were safe and in working order.
4. Maintain any equipment it has installed to provide hot water and heating.
In law, such repairs should be competed within a reasonable time. What is reasonable depends on the type of repair. The tenancy handbook provided timescales of 24 hours for an emergency, such as no heating and hot water in November to April, and 20 working days for routine repairs. “Complex” repairs would take longer.

Chronology

The resident wrote to the landlord on 11 March 2021 that he did not have gas for a month over Christmas (2018). The landlord had “mocked” him and said it was not its concern while the gas supplier had blamed the landlord.
The resident wrote again on 12 March 2021 as follows:
1. He had had to move out on two occasions for the landlord to effect repairs. On his return, none of the repairs had been carried out, and his curtains were left “ruined” on the floor. He was left without a curtain rail for 11 days.
2. He had reported sewage in his toilet for a year.
3. The boiler pumped out boiling water that was dangerous and which had resulted in damage to the basement flat.
4. The front window had been cracked for several months and he considered it to be dangerous. This was to have been resolved on 31 January 2020.
5. An air vent in kitchen was meant to have been changed over two decades previously.
6. The fireplace was meant to be checked for sound, health and safety reasons.
7. The front fire door had not been replaced.
8. He had had no gas supply “last Christmas”.
9. The landlord’s contractor had informed him “they” should have put a new boiler and radiators in “years ago”.
According to internal emails at the time, the landlord investigated the reports.
On 26 March 2021, according to the landlord’s internal emails, it had not been able to install a new boiler due to the resident not providing access. The existing boiler was working but had a small leak. The resident would have to leave the property for the boiler to be installed as the contractor would not enter the property with the resident or a housing officer present “due to his actions”.
On 6 April 2021, the landlord wrote requesting more details of the air vent and fireplace so that it could schedule a visit “as soon as possible”.
The resident replied on the same day. It was not possible to open a kitchen window as the ceilings were very high. He had been told not to decorate due to health and safety regulations. He was told that the boiler, radiators, front door and window needed to be replaced which would take a day. The front room fireplace was ripped out and not decorated. He had moved out of the property three times for periods of three to four weeks for works to be done. He referred the landlord to their previous correspondence.
The landlord replied the following day that its records did not transfer over when it “joined” the council. It responded as follows:
1. It had tried to arrange an appointment to repair the broken window but the resident had requested a temporary decant. The works would take approximately one hour only and a decant was not necessary.
2. It would inspect the broken air vent and arrange any works required.
3. It would inspect all the fireplaces at the same time.
4. A replacement front fire door had been measured and manufactured and was now ready for installation. It would only take a few hours.
5. A contractor would investigate the boiler spilling water to the flat below.
6. It would also inspect the ceilings during his visit.
7. It asked the resident to book an appointment for the works and inspections.
According to an internal email, on 30 April 2021, the resident left the flat in the morning to allow the works to be carried out. The landlord installed a new front door and a new boiler. The bedroom door that was off its hinges was re-hung and a new joining strip was attached to the bathroom floor. An inspection had taken place for further jobs.
The landlord replaced the lounge bay window on 30 April 2021 and removed the curtain rail in order to facilitate the repairs.
The landlord confirmed internally at the time that it would replace a kitchen wall unit door that had been damaged during the boiler installation. The landlord considered further steps as follows:
1. The front door fitter needed “to pack” the door out as there was a gap.
2. The radiators were functioning “fine”.
3. Exploring a local authority decoration scheme, depending on the resident’s eligibility.
4. It considered whether the resident should carry out tasks for which he was responsible himself or “or just get on with it”.
5. Making a referral to a Tenancy Sustainment Officer in order to provide support to the resident. (TSO).
6. It considered that the resident could be “challenging” which presented difficulties in carrying out any repairs but that the resident was also vulnerable.
7. It was concerned with the condition of cleanliness of the property.
8. The cooker was condemned for not having any knobs, It had secured funding for a new cooker for the supplier to fit.
On 5 May 2021, there was internal correspondence regarding a report by the resident on 1 May 2021 that there was intermittent or no heating or hot water from the newly installed boiler. Checks had been carried out. The landlord asked the contractor to contact the resident as a matter of urgency. The landlord considered the list of repairs. Some were agreed works and some the tenant’s responsibility. There had been a disagreement between the landlord and the resident as to the use of a type of resin to fill the cracks which had held up the works. There was an internal discussion as to what works were the resident’s and what were the landlord’s responsibility.
An internal email of the time also stated that this Service would require a “proper statement” on each of the works, together with details, dates and visits as well as any issues in getting access, and what it had done to overcome any access issues, despite some challenging behaviour issues. There followed a detailed investigation.
The landlord also produced a list of actions and a discussion about which were works were the resident’s and which the landlord’s responsibility. It was initially not going to carry out all the Works that had been identified.
On 5 May 2021, the landlord considered the air vent and the fireplace inspection. The condition was satisfactory. On 30 May 2021, the landlord arranged for the hole in the bedroom chimney breast to be covered with a plastic vent, to allow ventilation and stop the chimney breast from getting damp. The resident could close it manually to block out any sounds by him. It considered the kitchen vent. The landlord also noted that:
1. The resident refused access for “a few days”.
2. The resident reported he had “mental issues” but was not refusing works.
3. It was a very complex case involving several teams.
4. The new boiler broke down the day after it was installed and caused a flood a few days later when the contractor went to fix it.
5. It investigated the history of the vent and that the vent was redundant. It considered the alternatives ways of dealing with it. It noted that the kitchen had an openable window but if this proved insufficient to deal with condensation then it would consider installing a mechanical extractor fan.
The landlord wrote to the resident on 11 May 2021 with its first stage response as follows:
1. The complaint was about ongoing delays in repairs to his boiler, window, front door and air vents. It apologised for the long delays.
2. It set out the works it had carried out on 30 April 2021.
3. A second round of follow-on works were to be scheduled “very soon”.
4. The relationship between the resident and the landlord had been “strained” but it hoped that the recent works had helped improved the situation and demonstrate a commitment to supporting him to be able to enjoy his home.
5. There have been several visits to service the boiler since 2018. The boiler was previously replaced in 2008. Attempts to service and replace the boiler including July, August, September 2020 and January 2021 were disrupted or postponed as the agreed steps, for example, clearing belongings from around the work area had not been carried out by the resident. On occasions, the team had to leave the job as the work environment became unsuitable on the day. The boiler was replaced during the joint works day on 30 April 2021. All necessary tests were carried out and it was fully functioning on that day.
6. It apologised that it needed to return to replace a part which had caused a leak in the boiler. The radiators were functioning but as a gesture of goodwill, it would replace the radiators at a future phase of works.
7. It apologised that a cupboard door was damaged during the installation of the boiler, and it would be replaced during the next phase of works.
8. The gas supply had been capped in December 2018 by the supplier although there was money on the meter. The local authority contractors were able to re-instate the gas supply at the time.
9. A job was raised regarding the front window which had been cracked on 18 August 2020 as a routine (20 working days) window replacement. The resident had requested a decant but the landlord viewed that as unnecessary as the job would take under two hours.
10. The window contractor attended on 29 October 2020 and confirmed that there was plastic film over the crack and that it was therefore safe until it could be replaced. The window was successfully replaced on 30 April 2021.
11. It apologised that the air vent in the kitchen was to have been changed over two decades previously. The louvred air vent above the back door from the kitchen was raised for repair or replacement in the repairs history in 2005 and 2013. The parties were unable to reach agreement about access dates and times and after three attempts, each job was cancelled, in accordance with its contractor’s guidelines at the time. The fire brigade had not given any instruction to replace it. It explained what the vent consisted of and its historical purpose. It agreed to install a mechanical extractor fan at the next phase of works. The landlord attended on 28 April 2021 but access was not provided.
12. A “hit-or-miss” vent in the chimney had been originally installed on 20 February 2018 in response to a noise complaint. It also served to regulate air flow to prevent the chimney breast getting damp. If there was still too much noise, the vent could be closed manually. This was replaced on 30 April 2021.
13. The bedroom fireplace had been bricked up and was in good order. A crack in the bedroom chimney breast would be raked out and investigated during the next round of works. This would likely be repaired with epoxy resin and patch plastered over.
14. The job to replace his front fire door was raised on 11 January 2021 but the fire door team were understaffed due to COVID-19. The parties were unable to reach agreement about the date for replacement and the conditions surrounding the replacement, as the resident wanted a decant, until the opportunity arose to schedule it with the other works. The door was replaced on 30 April 2021 and was fully functional. Decorative filler would be applied during the next round of works.
15. The cracks that the plastering supervisors inspected were decorative rather than structural cracks and as such were the tenant’s responsibility. It apologised that this has not been communicated clearly. However, the Tenancy Sustainment Team would work with the resident to acquire a discretionary decoration grant that would allow the hiring of decorators. The discretionary decoration grant should be able to cover replacement curtains.
According to the landlord’s email of 8 June 2023, the landlord replaced the cooker in May 2021.One radiator was replaced on 15 July 2021 but the rest were deemed not necessary and aesthetic issues only.
On 23 July 2021, the resident wrote as follows:
1. The boiler had not been fitted correctly. He had a video of the contractors “flooding” the kitchen.
2. The new front door had a “dangerous gap” underneath it. It could not be fixed by just putting some wood underneath it. The contractor had measured the door on three occasions.
3. He disputed that a surveyor had attended on 28 April 2021. Two colleagues had attended to see if the radiators could be changed on the same day as the boiler.
4. A letter of 31 January 2019 (not seen by this Service) showed he should have received a response about all the repairs before the first lockdown.
5. The landlord had informed him that the ceiling was the local authority’s responsibility. He would then have to decorate after cracks had been filled in the walls.
6. He had moved out four times for three months so the council could do all repairs including the vent. He queried why this had not happened.
7. He stated there was a substance leaking from his ceiling.
The resident provided a photograph to the landlord which appeared to be of a ceiling with flaking paint but the Ombudsman cannot make an absolute determination on that.
According to internal emails of on and around 11 August 2021, the landlord noted that:
1. A TSO would support the resident to arrange clearance of items from his living area that he identified as needing to go, provide assistance to replace his bed and bedding, fit his existing curtains or replace the old curtains.
2. It considered what steps and a number of options to address poor décor in the bedroom and cracks in the plaster. It noted that his high ceilings made decorating difficult.
3. It noted that it had fitted a curtain track with hooks after replacing a bay window. It weighed up what to do.
4. It did not have access to funding for redecoration but the resident could apply to the discretionary social fund, although decoration was not on their priority list.
5. There was a significant backlog of repairs that it was seeking to address.
6. The vast majority of this work would fit in its lowest priority level currently, with the exception of the alteration of the new front door and the electrical socket.
7. It considered the resident’s reports of leaks or ”yellow gunge” coming through his bathroom ceiling. It concluded that the paint was peeling badly due to an area having been repaired at some point in the past but the decoration had been defective.
8. It considered how it would arrange the works.
Further internal emails recorded that:
1. The landlord attended the property on 12 August 2021. The resident was out. It spoke with the resident briefly on the phone and he would agree access. The role of the TSO was to primarily sort bed and curtains but it hoped it would lead to “a new era of co-operation”.
2. The landlord would provide alternative accommodation for one week for the repairs team to carry out a list of repairs, including replacement bathroom and bedroom doors.
3. The bedroom and hallway were “in dire need” of decorating and the vulnerable tenant was finding the enormity of the works very distressing.
4. It considered in detail the steps required to decorate and how long it would take.
5. It noted that the resident was vulnerable. There is reference to various medical issues and its wish to improve the property.
6. The resident wanted the repairs done but found the process difficult. The TSO offered to get the curtains washed but he said he could not do this until after the 17 August 2021.
7. The landlord acknowledged it felt it had not been clear as to what it would or would not do.
8. The landlord decided “draw a line under historical events”, to save administrative time and start again from the repairs list.
The landlord attended the property on 13 August 2021. The resident showed a letter which he had reported was a promise to fix the cracks in his flat by the landlord. It was an appointment letter to assess the cracks several years ago. It considered making enquiries of the surveyors.
On 18 August 2021, the parties agreed to attend the property the following week.
The landlord wrote to the resident on 18 August 2021 offering assistance to seek replacing the curtains and bed/ bedding through support agencies. It explained it needed to secure the funds. It stated that the works were his responsibility and this was an opportunity for the landlord to assist him as a gesture of goodwill.
The resident wrote on 28 Aug 2021 that his complaints were not just about repairs any more but about why his complaints had been “ignored for years”.
On 20 September 2021, the landlord wrote to the resident with its final complaint response as follows (the response appeared to be in draft):
1. A new boiler was fitted and the operatives checked it was working before leaving the property. Unfortunately, there was a part in the boiler that did not “work properly”, and this became apparent later and caused a leak on the floor. The operatives returned the next day and fixed the problem. It apologised. It did not find that the fitting of the boiler had been done incorrectly.
2. A job to replace the resident’s door was raised on 11 January 2021 and a new door was fitted on 30 April 2021. It was functional but required some decorative filler which would be applied during the next round of works. It had not seen evidence of a dangerous gap. It suggested a using a door stop to prevent slamming.
3. It took the view that there were instances where the resident had not been kept informed of the list of repairs and the scheduling.
4. It recommended that the parties focussed on the repair assessment of May 2021. It was not able to add any further to the Stage 1 response.
5. It apologised that there has been confusion about whether the ceiling cracks were the responsibility of the landlord or the resident. Cracks that were decorative in nature were the responsibility of the tenant. He was being supported in accessing a discretionary decoration grant to resolve this issue.
6. It did not find evidence that he had have been “rudely blamed” about the vent in his kitchen. There have been historic jobs raised to fix or replace the vent but times and dates could not be agreed on. A commitment had been made to either fix or replace the glass vent with a mechanical vent during the next round of works.
7. Works were not related to the ceiling above the toilet. It explained there was flaking paint on the bathroom ceiling.
8. Some of the actions were the responsibility of the tenant but the repairs team had committed to resolving them on his behalf as follows:
  1. Replacement bedroom door.
  2. Replace bathroom door.
  3. Bedroom chimney breast.
  4. Lounge curtain refitting, with the wording “apparently the curtains were removed on a previous repair (?) the tracks are definitely still there but don’t know if curtains are stored at the property? (This would usually be tenant’s responsibility to remove and reinstate soft furnishings to necessitate repairs)”.
  5. Minor plaster repairs to cracking on walls and ceiling throughout. “This is decorative and would usually fall under tenant’s responsibility”.
  6. The above works were the responsibility of the resident.
  7. Front door/fire door frame alteration to complete new door install.
  8. Replacement kitchen wall unit.
  9. Reglaze the obsolete glass louvre vent and install a mechanical extractor fan.
  10. Trailing cable in hallway causing a trip hazard. This was “for Mr F’s fridge freezer which cannot be housed in the kitchen so has to sit in the hall. My suggestion would be to install an additional switched single socket for the fridge in its new position and surface run the cable in trunking to keep it out of the way”.
  11. Replacement radiators throughout “were reported as working but in poor aesthetic appearance, this work may not be necessary”.
According to the landlord’s internal emails of 27 September 2021, there were concerns about costs. It appreciated it had said it would assist. It considered alternatives. The resident had left his flat that day and a team of operatives had started to work in the property.
An internal email of 28 September 2021 stated that the Stage 2 complaint response had been sent the previous day. The landlord reported that it had replaced the chimney vent and possibly blocked the fireplace to muffle noise. The vent above the kitchen door was not broken.
On 22 October 2021, the TSO repeated its offer to the resident to support him with getting his curtains cleaned and rehung or could apply for funding for some new curtains.
The resident replied on 31 October 2021 asking to replace the curtains. He still wanted his questions regarding delays addressed.
On 8 June 2023 the landlord informed this Service of the following works in addition to those referred to:
1. Replacement bedroom door for new internal ply flush door as existing door is badly warped on 10 October 2022.
2. Works to the bedroom chimney breast was categorised as non-essential work and deferred till after the resident moved out, due to access issues.
3. There was no evidence that the front door had been altered.
4. Replacement kitchen wall unit door (damaged during boiler install) was fitted on 10 October 2022.
5. Replacement bathroom door was fitted on 19 May 2023.
6. Reglaze the glass louvre vent and install a mechanical extractor fan on 10 of October 2022.
7. Trailing cable in hallway was addressed on 10 October 2022.
8. The curtain track and curtains were not replaced.
9. The “non-essential“ decorations were not carried out due to access and operational issues.
The resident moved out of the property in March 2023.

Assessment and findings

The resident raised in his complaint of March 2021 that he had no gas supply in his property in December 2018. While this complaint was historical, the landlord addressed the complaint. It is noted that the explanation was that the gas had been capped due to an error by the resident’s relevant energy provider. No fault is therefore attributed to the landlord. The landlord exercised its reasonable discretion to uncap it.
The Ombudsman has noted that the resident’s reported that the works had been due to be carried out a number of years ago and he had been promised works that had not been carried out. This was largely not disputed. The landlord did not provide the evidence to the Ombudsman of its past actions, however, the Ombudsman would not investigate issues that had not been raised within a reasonable period, usually six months prior to the complaint, or complaints that had not been referred to the Ombudsman within a reasonable period of time. This is because it is not proportionate to cover a lengthy period. Some of the reasons for delays were referred to. There had been disputes about the works, such as whether the cracks were decorative or structural and how the repairs should be addressed, including the resident’s request for a decant and his disputing the use of certain materials.
Given the arrangements that the landlord made during the complaint period and their references made in the internal emails, the Ombudsman accepts there may have been difficulties in relation to access. However, the Ombudsman is unable to determine whether each delay could be attributed to the resident. Moreover, the resident made references to a number of absences from the property when works were carried out. The landlord also indicated that it accepted responsibility for some of the delays.
It was reasonable that it had amended its approach in relation to its process where a resident did not give access so that it would not simply close a repair case automatically if access had been refused.
While the landlord did not evidence the resident’s request, the Ombudsman would not expect the landlord to decant a resident for the duration of a brief repair. The Ombudsman also considers that the landlord was entitled to rely on the judgment of its surveyor in the matter of the use of materials and the cause of the cracks. Moreover, the resident’s evidence of the disputed conclusion (whether the cracks were decorative or structural) was merely an appointment letter which did not contain the relevant information or promise by the landlord.
While the Ombudsman has not investigated the period prior to the complaint, there was sufficient evidence within the correspondence that there were factors for the delays which cannot be attributed to the landlord such as discussions about the dispute over the use of materials and the resident cooperating with the works.
The landlord dealt with the complaint by drawing a line under the history and offering to carry out repairs. The evidence showed there were a number of reasons for taking that approach. One was because it would take up considerable management time that it would better spend on focussing on the repairs. The second was that it did not have the documents to address all of the resident’s claims. It is noted that this was not altogether satisfactory from the point of view of record keeping. The landlord was able to explain some but not all of reported delays. This was a failure of recording keeping. It also referred to a transfer of its records from the local authority. The significance of this is not clear to the Ombudsman.
However, while the delays clearly caused the resident frustration, the Ombudsman considers the landlord’s decision to bring matters to a close was a reasonable and pragmatic approach, in particular as the landlord offered to carry out a number of repairs that it was not obliged to do.
The internal correspondence demonstrated that the landlord intended to provide a detailed response. It investigated the repairs and also wished to demonstrate to this Service what it had done to overcome the access issues. The Ombudsman would expect the landlord to make such efforts and to address, as far as was proportionate and reasonable, any challenging behaviours of vulnerable residents. The Ombudsman would expect that standard in all cases, not only where the Ombudsman is carrying out an investigation.
The Ombudsman will consider whether, in the opinion of the Ombudsman, whether this constituted reasonable redress for the resident.
The landlord took reasonable steps in relation to the resident’s reports of 12 March 2021. There was no dispute that it had already intended to repair the boiler. It was reasonable of the landlord to make enquiries and to arrange for a number of works to be carried out at the same time, given its concerns about access, and the need for the resident to be out of the property. In the circumstances, carrying out the works by the end of April 2021 was reasonable. It was also reasonable that it effected the repairs to the boiler, bedroom door and bathroom floor and carried out an inspection, in order to identify any further repairs.
While it was regrettable that the boiler presented immediate issues, it was reasonable of the landlord to ensure it was repaired which it did so in a reasonable period as there are occasions when the unforeseeable occurs. There was no evidence that there was any fault with the fitting. It was reasonable that the landlord considered the further repairs and that it made a referral to a TSO for assistance. It was also reasonable that throughout the evidence showed that the landlord recognised that the resident was vulnerable. It considered that despite challenges, it had an obligation and a desire to effect the repairs and additional works.
It was then reasonable that by 11 May 2021, the landlord had investigated the issues and consider its options, and it was also reasonable those works included fitting an extractor fan in the kitchen.
There was a delay to the further works. The evidence indicated that the fresh momentum in August 2021 was due to the resident’s contact with this Service and the landlord consequently escalating the resident’s complaint. While the landlord should have updated the resident in the meantime and been proactive, the evidence showed that the delay was due to a backlog following the Covid-19 pandemic. The pandemic caused a delay to repairs across the housing sector, due to the suspension of repairs the year before, lockdowns, the furlough scheme, staff ill-heath, and a shortage of supplies.
It was then reasonable that the landlord investigated in detail the works and considered how to approach them carefully, and what works it should carry out. It reconsidered, for example, its decision not to decorate the cracks in the property. It investigated its records. While the issues such as curtains were not the landlord’s responsibility, the landlord exercised is reasonable discretion in many respects and committed to addressing a number of issues beyond its remit and above its repair obligations. These included support through the TSO in relation to his curtains, decorations, replacing a cooker, replacing and repairing internal doors, and decorating. It additionally committed to replacing the radiators, even though they were reported as working. The evidence showed it spent considerable time considering its approach and that its approach to the resident was empathetic. By carrying out these steps, it sought to improve the landlord and resident relationship.
It was appropriate that it replaced the fire door and recognised that the trailing cable was a health and safety issue that it should address and that it prioritised the repairs, appropriately, prioritising health and safety issues as high and decoration as low.
The landlord’s assessment of which repairs were the landlord’s and which the resident’s responsibility was appropriate and in accordance with its legal obligations, and the resident’s handbook.
The Ombudsman noted that the landlord weighed up whether to carry out the works that were over and above its repair obligations. It considered how this might improve the landlord and resident relationship and make the vulnerable resident comfortable in his home. While there are reasonable considerations, the Ombudsman is also mindful that the landlord had limited financial and workforce resources and it should balance the needs of all its residents. It also risked raising the expectations of the resident, which the landlord recognised it had done. It was right to note that and, initially, determine to adhere to its promises. The Ombudsman would expect the landlord to consider its discretion when making decisions that affect a vulnerable resident and take their disabilities into account. Indeed, this would be an obligation to make reasonable adjustments under the Equality Act 2010. Those adjustments only need to be reasonable and proportionate and do not impose an absolute duty on the landlord. The landlord should also ensure that its offers of repairs and works above and beyond its obligations, while commendable are proportionate and achievable.
It appears that the final response letter dated 20 September 2021 was sent out in draft. According to the evidence, it was sent on 27 September 2021. The Ombudsman will make a recommendation in that regard.
However, the promises of September 2021 did not all come to fruition, or they were carried out significantly later. Works promised in September 2021 and sooner were not carried out until October 2022, such as the replacement of the internal doors, the damaged wall unit, installation of kitchen extractor, and addressing the trailing cable, despite this being a tripping hazard. Some issues were not addressed at all, such as the bathroom door and the front door. The Ombudsman accepts there may have been some access issues, that some of the works were non-essential, and the landlord may have felt that it over-promised. However, the Ombudsman would expect the landlord to keep its promises or provide a reasonable explanation detailing why it could not do so.
The Ombudsman considers that the landlord demonstrated that it wished to mend the tenant and landlord relationship, and that it wished to act reasonably. It took account of the resident’s vulnerability and was empathetic. It sought to accommodate the resident and gave considerable thought on how best to achieve the repairs. It adjusted the resident’s expectations in part as regard the radiators and the curtains, and provided support through its TSO. It exercised its reasonable discretion and addressed repairs as well as decoration and other works, such as providing a cooker, that were beyond its obligations.
However, the landlord made some assurances in May 2021, and having recognised it had over-promised, it made the same assurances again in September 2021. It did not adhere to its assurances, to carry out works “in the next phase of works” and “very soon”. It did not provide timescales. While there was no policy timescale for discretionary works, there was a need to address the extractor fan and the cable wires. It did not manage the resident’s expectations. While well-intentioned, and delays may be attributed to the resident, it was poor management on the part of the landlord. In the circumstances, the Ombudsman finds service failure.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with Paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure in relation to the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports in relation to repairs.

Reasons

The evidence showed there had been historical delays but there was also evidence that not all the delays could be attributed to the landlord. The landlord set to put it right and to effect works above and beyond its obligations, which the level of compensation will reflect. However, despite stating it would carry out works “in the next round of works” and “very soon”, works were either significantly delayed or not carried out at all. While the delays may have partially been due to the resident and/or by agreement, the Ombudsman would expect the landlord to adhere to its assurances.

Orders

The Ombudsman orders the landlord to pay the resident compensation in the amount of £250 within 4 weeks of the date of this determination.

Recommendations

The Ombudsman makes the following recommendations:
1. The landlord should ensure its staff keeps records of its inspections and outcomes so as to explain its decisions and keep track of its actions and the outcomes of inspections. The landlord is referred to the Ombudsman’s report on Information management. KIM-report-v2-100523.pdf (housing-ombudsman.org.uk).
2. The landlord should
  1. Monitor its repairs to ensure they are carried out.
  2. Maintain sufficient records so that it can keep track of repairs, its actions and any assessments of repairs required.
3. The landlord should ensure that its correspondence is correctly dated and in final form before being sent.
4. The landlord should take care that it carries out a proper assessment prior to making assurances to a resident and ensures that it adheres to its promises or provides a reasonable and timely explanation why it is not able to do so.
5. The landlord should notify the Ombudsman of its intentions regarding these recommendations within four weeks of this report.