Brighton and Hove City Council (202327022)

Background

1. The resident has been a tenant of the landlord since February 2000. The property is a 3-bedroom ground-floor flat. Water leaks from the flat above caused damage to his property, which required repairs to the kitchen and bathroom. Up until November 2023, the local authority’s temporary accommodation team managed the upstairs flat, which was then passed back to the owner. While the flat was with the owner, the landlord began the process of purchasing the property.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of:
   1. Sub-standard repairs.
   2. A leak from the property above.
3. We have also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

Our decision (determination)

4. We have found that there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of:
   1. Sub-standard repairs.
   2. A leak from the property above.
5. We have also found maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.

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

Summary of reasons

6. The landlord’s messaging around the repairs it had carried out was inconsistent. There was also evidence that indicated that it had not complied with the requirement to “make good” as stipulated in its policy.
7. The landlord missed an opportunity to take action to investigate the leak and did not communicate with the resident appropriately during the period of the complaint.
8. The landlord did not comply with the requirements of its complaints policy.

Putting things right

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

Orders

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

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

What we found and why

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

9. As part of its response to a previous leak in 2022, the landlord conducted repairs in the resident’s bathroom and kitchen. On 4 March 2023, he told it that the repairs that had been undertaken were “shoddy” due to a lack of care and attention by the repairs team. The landlord contacted the resident on 9 March 2023 to discuss his concerns. He said he wanted the landlord to replaster the kitchen ceiling. He advised he wanted it to replace boxed sections around the cistern and pipes in the toilet, which it had removed. The landlord’s contact with the resident was timely and the correct course of action.
10. The landlord’s repairs policy states that internal decoration is the resident’s responsibility, even after it has concluded any repair work. The policy confirms that the landlord will “make good” and leave surfaces ready for decoration.
11. On 24 March 2023, the landlord visited the resident’s property to inspect the repairs, which was appropriate. It said the issues with the kitchen ceiling were minor and advised him to fill the gaps and decorate the ceiling. It is reasonable to suggest that the minimum expectations from the term “making good” would mean that the landlord had filled and sanded any holes and gaps, leaving the surface ready for decoration. We would therefore question whether the finish of the ceiling was in fact satisfactory.
12. The landlord advised that the boxing removed in the toilet was not “council standard” and had likely been installed by a previous tenant. It explained that it was standard practice not to enclose toilet cisterns to ensure that it had ready access for any future repairs. The reasons the landlord provided for refusing to box in the cistern were reasonable.
13. However, the removal of the tiled boxing had a significant impact on the appearance of the resident’s toilet. It would therefore have also been reasonable for the landlord to have considered other available options, such as a quick release box section not permanently fixed in place. The landlord’s view on the resident’s request was therefore unnecessarily narrow.
14. In its stage 1 response to the resident’s complaint about the substandard repairs, the landlord reiterated its position that it had provided after the inspection on 24 March 2023. The landlord closed the resident’s previous complaint on the matter without conducting a complaint investigation. As he had raised the issue again, it would have been reasonable for the landlord to have inspected so that it could obtain an up to date assessment for its complaint response.
15. On 27 November 2023, a staff member visited the resident to discuss his overall concerns about the landlord’s actions. As part of the visit they looked at the repairs in the bathroom and kitchen. After the visit they sent an internal email stating that the finish of the repairs “could have been better”. They advised that the kitchen ceiling “looks like it needs re plastering as there are screws exposed”. They also said that the work in the toilet was not satisfactory and that there was a large gap behind the toilet bowl.
16. The views of the staff member were not consistent with the operative conducting the previous inspection, which raises questions regarding the landlord’s previous position and the quality of the work.
17. We have not been provided with a copy of the resident’s complaint escalation request, but it is clear from the landlord’s response that he again raised the issue with the repairs. In its response, the landlord said that the repairs had been inspected and were up to standard, and that any further work was up to the resident. The inspection referred to was the one on 24 March 2023. The landlord’s response did not have regard to the staff member’s views from 27 November 2023. This was unreasonable. Further, the differing opinions of the staff members would have been both confusing and frustrating for the resident.
18. On 13 February 2024, the resident told the landlord that he was going to approach the Ombudsman. It then asked him what work it would have to carry out to prevent him approaching us. The landlord then visited to inspect the toilet on 8 March 2024. In reference to the work required, it said it was “fairly minor stuff” but that the resident was going to the Ombudsman. It went on to state in an internal email “hopefully we can avoid that by doing the work”.
19. The landlord’s assertion that it would conduct further repairs to prevent the resident from approaching us is concerning. Landlords should complete repairs to the standard required by their policies and procedures, and repairs should not be linked to a resident’s intention to complain to the Ombudsman. The fact that the landlord conducted further work to the toilet raises questions as to whether the initial repairs were up to standard. Having to pursue the landlord caused the resident ongoing time, trouble and inconvenience.
20. On 16 February 2024, in another email referring to the toilet, a staff member said they “did not see much wrong” but “would have specified using Upvc” (instead of leaving untreated wood). This again raises questions about the original repairs. We have therefore made an order below for the landlord to conduct a further inspection to assess the quality of the repairs.
21. For the reasons above we have made a finding of maladministration and have awarded the resident £250 compensation. This amount is in line with our remedies guidance for circumstances where the resident was adversely affected, but there was no permanent impact.

22. As previously mentioned, the local authority leased the upstairs flat from the owner and used it for the purposes of temporary accommodation.
23. On 3 November 2023, when the resident reported the leak from above, the local authority’s tenants were still in residence. This would indicate that, as part of the local authority itself, the landlord would have had access to the flat and/or to relevant teams in order to assess the resident’s reports of a leak.
24. The landlord’s operatives visited the upstairs flat on 13 November 2023. This was within the landlord’s timescale of 20 working days to inspect containable leaks, as outlined in its repairs policy.
25. When the operatives arrived, the tenants were in the process of moving out. In the post visit communications, the operatives advised that they would have had to remove a vanity unit to inspect for a leak under the bath. As the tenants were moving out, they stated that the leak would likely not be an issue because the water would not be in use. The landlord therefore did not inspect under the bath.
26. While this could have been correct, the only way to know would have been to inspect under the bath to determine the source of the leak. It was unreasonable that this did not happen. Not checking meant that the landlord could not reassure the resident that the issue had been resolved. Due to his experience from a previous leak, the operatives’ lack of action led to ongoing worry and distress for the resident.
27. The landlord issued its stage 1 response on 16 November 2023. In the response it advised it could not comment on the leak from the neighbouring property. It did not explain why which was unreasonable.
28. On 4 December 2023, the resident again contacted the landlord about the leak, which he said was causing damage. The same day, the landlord notified the owner of the property and asked that they inspect to remedy the problem. While the landlord was correct to contact the owner, it should have notified them as soon as it became aware of the leak on 3 November 2023. The 1 month delay to make contact indicated a failure to take timely action.
29. In an internal email on 4 December 2023, the landlord confirmed that the flat above was unoccupied, which was creating difficulties gaining access. It said that it no longer had keys as they had been given back to the owner. It advised it had spoken to the owner that day and highlighted both the importance of gaining access and the impact on its resident. The contents of this email indicates that the operatives’ decision not to conduct a thorough inspection on 13 November 2023 meant that a key opportunity to investigate the issue was missed.
30. On 6 December 2023, the resident told the landlord he had received conflicting messages. One staff member told him that they were trying to get access to the flat above to repair the leak. Another staff member then contacted him and said it was not the landlord’s responsibility to repair the leak. The resident said that the conflicting information and mixed messages were the reason he became frustrated and annoyed.
31. The resident contacted the landlord on 12 December 2023 for an update. On 13 December 2023 it informed him it had contacted the owner who was arranging for their own contractors to visit and inspect for the leak. The owner’s contractors visited on 15 December 2023 and reported that they could not find a leak. There is no evidence that the landlord passed this information to the resident, which was unfair.
32. The resident contacted the landlord on 17, 18 and 30 January 2024 asking for an update. It was not until 31 January 2024 – after the intervention of a staff member – that it told him that it was going to replace the entire bathroom in the upstairs flat. The landlord’s failure to respond to the resident’s information requests is an indication of poor communication. The evidence shows that the landlord did not provide proactive updates and that its communication was mainly reactive, which was likely frustrating for the resident.
33. In the landlord’s stage 2 response on 9 February 2024, it acknowledged that the resident had had difficulty contacting the correct service about the leak. While this was positive, it did not recognise any of the other issues that this investigation has highlighted or offer any compensation.
34. Given the findings of our investigation, we have made a finding of maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of a leak. We have also made an award of £250 compensation, which is in line with our remedies guidance.

35. At the time of the resident’s complaint, the landlord operated a 2-stage complaint process. Its applicable complaints policy said it would acknowledge stage 1 and 2 complaints within 2 working days. It would then provide a response within 10 and 20 working days respectively.
36. When the resident corresponded with the landlord on 3 March 2023 about a previous complaint, he included aspects about the sub–standard repairs. The landlord raised this as a new stage 1 complaint, which was appropriate and in line with our Complaint Handling Code (‘the Code’).
37. However, there is no evidence the landlord acknowledged the resident’s complaint as required by its policy. Also, it later closed the complaint over the telephone. The records do not indicate why it closed the complaint or what agreement, if any, it had reached with the resident. This is an indication of poor record keeping. It would also have been good practice for the landlord to have written to the resident, formally notifying him it had closed the complaint and outlining the reasons why.
38. On 7 November 2023, the resident made a further complaint. Again, there is no indication that the landlord provided the required acknowledgement. It provided its stage 1 response within 7 working days, which was in line with the policy.
39. In the response, the landlord said that it could not comment on the leak from the property above. This was inappropriate and a failure to comply with its policy, which required it to answer all complaint points. It would have been reasonable for the landlord to have explained the ownership of the above property as well as its involvement. In addition, it could have outlined what actions it was going to take to help resolve the resident’s concerns and detailed how often it would provide updates.
40. It is not clear from the evidence when the resident escalated his complaint. This is a further indication of poor record keeping. As with the previous 2 complaints, there is no evidence that the landlord acknowledged the resident’s escalation request. This indicates an ongoing failure to comply with its policy. In its stage 2 response, the landlord apologised for the delay in issuing it. However, due to the missing records we are unable to determine how late the response was. The landlord did not offer any compensation for the delay.
41. The landlord did not indicate in either the stage 1 or 2 response whether it upheld the resident’s complaint, as required by the Code.
42. For the reasons above we have found maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling and made an award of £150 compensation.

Learning

Knowledge and information management (record keeping)

43. The landlord’s records surrounding the resident’s complaints were lacking. It is vital that landlords keep robust records of all events during the complaints process so that they can demonstrate they have responded appropriately and answered all complaint points.
44. In addition, the resident informed the landlord on several occasions that his wife experienced ill health. In its evidence submissions to us, there was no indication that it had any vulnerability information recorded on its systems.

Communication

45. During the investigation it came to light that the landlord had advised the resident he should consider approaching the Ombudsman. However, after he indicated he intended to do so, the landlord asked what repairs it could offer to stop the resident approaching our Service. This inconsistent messaging was likely confusing for the resident.