Cambridge City Council (202203164)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202203164

Cambridge City Council

4 October 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:
    1. The landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about her bathroom refurbishment.
    2. The landlord’s handling of the associated complaint.

Background

  1. The resident is the tenant of the landlord. The landlord refurbished the bathroom in the property on 12 and 13 January 2022. The works specification form, dated 6 January 2022, noted that the resident declined to have the extractor fan replaced once the old fan had been removed.
  2. The resident raised a stage one complaint to the landlord on 9 February 2021 in which she expressed dissatisfaction with the hole in her wall left by the removal of the extractor fan and the attitude of the surveyor. The landlord’s stage one complaint response on 2 March 2022 advised her that the repairs had been raised to its maintenance team. It was subsequently unable to gain access to the property on 7 March 2022 to carry out a post-inspection of the bathroom works.
  3. The resident escalated her complaint to the next stage on 15 March 2022 because the hole in her bathroom wall remained unfilled and again mentioned comments made by the landlord’s surveyor. She additionally highlighted that LED lighting had been installed in the property against her wishes as part of the refurbishment and this was causing her to experience headaches.
  4. The landlord issued its final complaint response to the resident on 29 March 2022, which coincided with a visit from its repairs manager to assess the work at the property. This complaint response acknowledged the visit and advised that the repairs would be left in the hands of the visiting staff member.
  5. The landlord’s contractor was subsequently unable to gain access to carry out work on 1 June 2022.
  6. The resident informed the Ombudsman on 14 June 2022 that she remained dissatisfied with the lack of repair to the hole left by the extractor fan and the LED lighting which was still in place. She expressed regret at not informing the landlord that she had only temporarily repaired the hole herself.
  7. The landlord advised this Service on 15 August 2022 that it was still attempting to contact the resident to arrange for the repairs to be completed.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about her bathroom refurbishment

  1. It is noted that the resident raised dissatisfaction with the landlord about a hot water tap and damaged tiling after the landlord had issued its final response to the complaint about the bathroom works. As these were new issues which were not considered by the landlord through its complaints procedure, the issues will not be considered as part of the Ombudsman’s current investigation. This is because under the rules which govern our service, the landlord needs to be given the opportunity to respond to any issues through its complaints process before the Ombudsman can investigate them. The resident is entitled to raise a complaint with the landlord about these new issues if she is dissatisfied with its handling of these repairs and bring this to the Ombudsman is she wishes to once the complaint has exhausted the landlord’s internal complaints process.
  2. As part of her complaint, the resident has said that the LED lighting fitted in the property has affected her health. The Ombudsman does not doubt the resident’s comments but it is beyond the remit of this Service to determine whether there was a direct link between the installation of the lighting and any subsequent effect to the resident’s health. However, consideration has been given to the landlord’s response to the resident’s health concerns and any distress and inconvenience caused by any errors by the landlord.
  3. The landlord’s tenancy agreement with the resident confirms that the landlord is responsible for the repair and maintenance of the structure and exterior of the property, which includes the interior and exterior walls. This agreement confirms that the landlord will not repair any alterations or extra items fitted by the resident and the resident will be responsible for maintaining any alterations they have made.
  4. The landlord’s repairing obligation is to maintain the fixtures it provides in the property to ensure they are in proper working order. Where it provides an extractor fan, its obligation is to repair or replace it as required. The landlord’s records say the resident refused the installation of the new fan and records from 21 March 2022 between the landlord and its contractor noted that she had declined the landlord’s offer to make good the gap left by the removal of the old extractor fan. The resident had filled the gap herself, covering it with a bathroom unit. The surveyor’s report from 18 January 2022 noted that the resident had refused the replacement fan because it would obstruct the installation of a bathroom cabinet. Therefore, the hole left by the removal of the extractor fan was a by-product of the resident’s decision to carry out an addition or adaptation to the property. As confirmed above, the landlord had no responsibility to carry out repairs to elective alterations made by the resident.
  5. Whilst the resident’s concerns about the LED lighting are noted, there was no evidence that this was defective. The landlord would not generally be expected to replace the lighting unless it was defective. However, if the lighting is causing health problems for the resident, it may be appropriate for the landlord to consider replacing it for health reasons. The landlord would be entitled to ask for evidence to confirm the effect on the resident’s health and it would also be entitled to consider whether it would be cost effective to replace the lighting. The resident may be able to contact the local authority’s occupational health department for assistance in confirming the effect of the lighting on her health and what alternative lighting may be more appropriate for her circumstances. The landlord would be expected to consider any opinion given by occupational health when deciding whether to replace the lighting.
  6. . It was reasonable for the landlord to arrange an inspection of the property ijn response to the resident’s concerns and to establish whether the lighting was defective. The landlord did not obtain access to complete an inspection until 29 March 2022. The Ombudsman is not questioning the resident’s reasons for not allowing access, but the landlord would not be held responsible for delays while it was trying to gain access to the property.
  7. However, after its inspection on 29 March 2022, there was no evidence of the landlord attempting to carry out work at the property until the resident contacted it on 16 May 2022 to chase the work. Once the landlord accepted responsibility to address the repairs, it should have followed these through to completion.
  8. As there was no reported immediate risk to people or property, it would have been reasonable for the landlord to treat the repairs as routine repairs. This would have had a completion timeframe of 20 working days, as specified on the landlord’s website. However, 32 working days elapsed before the resident made further contact to chase the repairs. There was no evidence of the landlord communicating with the resident about the repairs within this time and was therefore a failure by the landlord to address the repairs in a timely manner. It subsequently unsuccessfully attempted to contact her to arrange access and it informed this Service that it was continuing to attempt to gain access.
  9. For the landlord’s failure to follow up on its inspection on 29 March 2022 promptly, it should pay the resident £50 compensation for her time, trouble and inconvenience in having to make further contact to chase the repairs. This is in accordance with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance, available on our website which suggests awards of compensation between £50 and £250 for instances of failure by the landlord which had an impact on the resident but which were of short duration and may not have significantly affected the overall outcome for the complainant.

The landlord’s handling of the associated complaint.

  1. The Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code) specifies that appropriate remedies should be provided to the resident to resolve complaints. This remedy should reflect the extent of any and all failures exhibited by the landlord. These remedies should include an acknowledgement of any failures, explanations for these, and details of the action it will take to put these failures right.
  2. The landlord’s complaint responses at the first and final stages of its internal process did not provide specific details on how it would resolve her repair issues. It would have been useful for it to clarify its position on the repairs, such as explaining that her changes to the extractor fan were considered a tenant alteration and confirming its position on these. The landlord could have explained what its obligations were regarding changing the LED lighting and what could do to resolve the complaint. In both complaint responses it briefly stated that the repairs had been referred to the appropriate staff or departments. These responses were unreasonable as they did not provide clarity or certainty to the resident concerning the next steps for her complaint.
  3. Furthermore, the landlord’s response to the complaint did not adequately recognise or acknowledge all the potential failures which occurred in the handling of repairs to the resident’s bathroom. In its conversations with her about her dissatisfaction with the repairs, she repeatedly reported that the staff member who inspected her bathroom voiced inappropriate opinions to her. The resident relayed that he had said “pay your rent come home and then just act like you are dead”. These comments could be considered to be inappropriate and unprofessional but there was no acknowledgment nor any investigation of this aspect of the complaint. This was a failure by the landlord to adequately consider all aspects of the complaint.
  4. The landlord should therefore pay £50 compensation to the resident to address its failures in the handling of the complaint, which were likely to have caused her inconvenience in having to pursue the complaint This award is in accordance with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance, as detailed above. The landlord should also write to the resident to clarify what actions it will take to complete the repair to the hole in wall, address the LED lighting and investigate the staff conduct she reported.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure by the landlord in:
    1. Its response to the resident’s concerns about her bathroom refurbishment.
    2. Its handling of the associated complaint.

Orders

  1. Within four weeks, the landlord should confirm to this Service that it has complied with the following orders:
    1. To pay the resident £50 compensation for its delay in carrying repairs following its final stage complaint response.
    2. To pay the resident £50 compensation for its failure to consider all aspects of her complaint and provide clear resolutions.
    3. Write to the resident to confirm its plan for resolving her reports of staff conduct, the hole in her bathroom wall, and the LED lighting.

 Recommendations

  1. The landlord should:
    1. Continue to attempt to arrange access with the resident to complete the repairs.
    2. Carry out refresher training with its complaints handling staff to ensure that all issues raised in complaints are addressed fully and in compliance with the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code.