Central Bedfordshire Council (202431480)

Background

1. The resident lives in a ground floor flat. She has a diagnosis of emotionally unstable personality disorder which the landlord was aware of at the time of the complaint. She complained about the landlord’s response to a leak on 22 September 2024 and a related repair to a corridor ceiling. She raised other issues after the stage 1 complaint response. However, we have not investigated these as the landlord did not address them in its stage 2 complaint response.
2. She also complained prior to this about another leak. However, as we have found no evidence that both leaks had the same cause, we have been unable to investigate the previous leak.

What the complaint is about

3. The complaint is about the landlord’s response to a leak and an associated repair.
4. We have also investigated the landlord’s response to the complaint.

Our decision (determination)

5. We have found that:
   1. There was no maladministration in the landlord’s response to a leak and an associated repair.
   2. There was maladministration in the landlord’s response to the complaint.

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

Summary of reasons

Leak

6. The landlord repaired the cause of the leak and damaged communal corridor ceiling within a reasonable timeframe and in line with its policy. It investigated the resident’s concerns about a response to an email appropriately and communicated its decision promptly.

Complaint

7. The 12-page stage 2 complaint response caused confusion. The landlord did not follow its policy and log the extra complaints made after stage 1.

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.

Recommendations

Our recommendations are not binding, and a landlord may decide not to follow them.

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.

8. The resident has told us about the effect the leak had on her mental health. We do not doubt her comments. However, in accordance with our Scheme, we are unable to determine whether there was a direct link between the landlord’s actions and the resident’s health. We can consider whether she experienced any distress because of errors made by the landlord. She may wish to take legal advice regarding this.
9. The landlord’s repairs and maintenance handbook for resident’s gives a freephone number to call to report repairs out of hours. It also confirms that it will complete urgent repairs within 5 working days.
10. The resident reported the leak on 22 September 2024 to the out of hours repairs service. An operative attended but could not resolve the issue so a roofer attended 2 days later. They found that the water outlet on the roof was blocked and rectified the issue. The landlord therefore took responsibility for the repair and completed it in line with its policy. While we appreciate that it would have been frustrating for the resident, as she had experienced a previous leak, we have seen no evidence that the 2 leaks were related.
11. The resident reported the issue via the correct channel but she also emailed the complaint handler that had answered her previous complaint. This member of staff responded to the email the next working day, advising her that she should report the issues via the usual channel. This was reasonable in the circumstances.
12. The resident also raised concerns about the wording of the email. We will not form a view on this. Our role is to decide whether the landlord adequately investigated this and took proportionate action based on the information available.
13. The landlord responded to this part of the complaint in the stage 1 and stage 2 complaint responses. There is evidence that it reviewed the email response in question because it included a transcript of it within its stage 2 complaint response. It took a view on the situation and provided an explanation for its decision that the staff member had acted appropriately. It communicated this to the resident within a reasonable timeframe. Therefore, we consider that it handled this part of the complaint appropriately in the circumstances.
14. Following the stage 1 complaint response the resident also complained about the communal corridor ceiling being damaged and her concerns about asbestos. The landlord addressed this in its stage 2 complaint response because it said that the damage was related to the leak in this complaint. Therefore, we have investigated this part of the complaint.
15. There is evidence that the landlord commissioned an asbestos survey for the communal corridor ceiling prior to completing any work. This concluded that the surveyor had detected no asbestos in the sample. It then raised a repair job to rectify the damage to the ceiling and it completed this work within a reasonable timeframe.
16. In summary, the landlord repaired the leak and damaged communal corridor ceiling within a reasonable timeframe and in line with its policy. It investigated the resident’s concerns about the email appropriately and communicated its decision promptly. Therefore, there was no maladministration in the landlords handling of the leak.
17. The landlord did not address some other issues that the resident complained about after the stage 1 complaint response in its stage 2 complaint response. Therefore, we have not been able to investigate them. This is covered in further detail in the section below.

18. The landlord’s complaints policy says that if residents raise additional complaints during the investigation, they incorporate them into the stage 1 response if they are related, and the stage 1 response has not been issued. Where the stage 1 response has been issued, the new issues are unrelated to the issues already being investigated, or it would unreasonably delay the response, it will log the new issues as a new complaint.
19. The resident raised several new issues in emails she sent to the landlord after the stage 1 complaint response had been issued. The landlord was therefore following its policy when it advised her that it would not be addressing:
    1. removal of furniture
    2. the bedroom ceiling replacement
    3. the bedroom light
    4. the asbestos in the bedroom ceiling
    5. the stress caused by these
    6. or the walk-in shower

    in the stage 2 complaint response.

20. However, the stage 2 complaint response was 12 pages long which caused confusion. Despite the landlord saying that it would not consider these elements in the complaint response it made comments on several of the issues. Furthermore, it asked the resident to log further complaints herself. This was not in line with its policy which says that it will log the new issues in a new complaint. This caused the resident distress particularly considering her medical condition. This failure cost the resident time and trouble approaching us for assistance.
21. In summary, the long stage 2 complaint response caused confusion because it partially addressed complaints that it said it would not consider. The landlord also failed to log new complaints in accordance with its policy. Therefore, there was maladministration in its handling of the complaint.

Learning

22. The landlord should ensure that complaint responses are customer friendly and clear on what it is including in the response.

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

23. No issues identified.

Communication

24. The landlord could have improved the communication within the stage 2 complaint response by making it clear what it was not addressing and being more succinct.