Cornwall Council (202011484)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202011484

Cornwall Council

9 June 2021


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 complaints are about the landlord’s:

a.     Repairs to the resident’s shower.

b.     Response to the resident’s complaint.

c.      Response to reported electrical problems at the property, and safety concerns.

Jurisdiction

  1. What we can and cannot consider is called the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. This is governed by the Housing Ombudsman Scheme (the Scheme). When a complaint is brought to the Ombudsman, we must consider all the circumstances of the case as there are sometimes reasons why a complaint will not be investigated.
  2. After carefully considering all of the evidence, in accordance with paragraph 39(a) of the Scheme, complaint c as set out above is outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.
  3. Paragraph 39(a) of the Scheme states that “The Ombudsman will not investigate complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion…are made prior to having exhausted a member’s complaints procedure, unless there is evidence of a complaint handling failure and the Ombudsman is satisfied that the member has not taken action within a reasonable timescale.”
  4. In correspondence to the Ombudsman, the resident has raised specific concerns about the condition of the electrics within the property – and his belief that the shower was causing them to trip. The resident has also complained that on one occasion when the property lost power, he was advised to disconnect all appliances – including the cooker. He has expressed concern that this was unsafe and inappropriate, as he is not a qualified electrician. The resident adds that on several occasions he had informed the landlord that water was dripping through the light fitting/wall in the downstairs utility room – and even on to the main electrical box. 
  5. While the resident’s concerns about this are noted, and understood, this is not a matter which has been investigated through the landlord’s complaints procedure. It is noted that the resident had raised concerns about the electrics at the property whilst the shower repairs were being undertaken; however, the Ombudsman has seen no evidence that a formal complaint about the matter was raised directly with the landlord. It follows that the Ombudsman cannot investigate the matter now as part of this complaint.

Background and summary of events

  1. The resident is a tenant of the landlord’s property. The property is a three-bedroom, terraced house. The property is occupied by the resident, his wife, and children. The resident has informed the Ombudsman that two members of the household are disabled.

The tenancy agreement

  1. The tenancy agreement sets out the rights and responsibilities of both the resident and the landlord. Section 3.1 sets out the landlord’s responsibilities as follows:

“we must keep the structure and exterior of your property (including drains, gutters and external pipes) in good repair and in proper working order. Other parts of your home that we must repair are:

  • The structure and exterior of the building – roofs, walls, floors, ceilings, window frames, external doors, drains, gutters, outside pipes;
  • Kitchen and bathroom fixtures – basins, sinks, toilets, baths;
  • Electrical wiring, gas and water pipes within the boundary of the property;
  • Heating equipment and water heating equipment.”
  1. The tenancy agreement states at section 3.2 that the landlord must complete repairs in a “reasonable time”. It continues that once a repair is reported, the landlord will tell the resident when the work will be completed, or offer an appointment – depending on how urgent the job is.

 

The repairs policy

  1. The landlord’s repairs policy (the policy) details the stages associated with completing repairs – including the steps residents need to take to report a repair, and how the repair will be responded to.
  2. The policy states that in some instances, it may be necessary for a pre-works inspection to be carried out. This is ordinarily when the resident is unsure of what the problem is, if further investigations are needed, or if a previous repair has not solved the problem. Any pre-works inspection will be carried out within five working days of receiving a resident’s report.
  3. The policy also sets out the landlord’s service standards for completing particular jobs. In relation to plumbing fittings, it states that the replacement of a faulty shower unit, where no bath is available, should be completed within three working days. The replacement of a faulty over the bath shower, should take place in 20 working days.

Complaints policy

  1. The landlord’s complaints policy states that the first action on receiving a complaint will be for a member of staff to contact the resident to discuss their concerns. It provides that this initial contact will be made within three working days.
  2. Once the initial conversation has taken place, the complaints policy states that the landlord will advise the resident of the action they are going to take – and that in most circumstances, this will be no more than within 10 working days.
  3. Where the landlord cannot take the required action within the initial 10-day response period, it will notify the resident and agree a course of action. Furthermore, if the issue is particularly complex then it will discuss the matter with the resident and agree a suitable timescale.
  4. To investigate the complaint, the policy states that landlord staff will review the information provided, check its systems and speak to staff. Once the investigation is complete, staff will contact the resident to discuss the findings – and the outcome of the investigation will also be provided in writing.
  5. The complaints policy continues that if it cannot reach a resolution to the resident’s satisfaction, then they may ask for the complaint to be reviewed by three of its Tenant Panel Adjudicators.

 

 

Summary of events

  1. On 7 September 2020, the resident contacted the landlord to report that his over the bath shower was not working. A job for the repair was raised; however, it is not clear what transpired after this.
  2. The resident submitted a formal complaint to the landlord on 23 September, as the repair was still outstanding. Details of the complaint have not been provided to the Ombudsman.
  3. A job was subsequently raised by the landlord on 8 October. The job description read “possible new shower”, and the job was marked as complete on the same day. The landlord next received a report on 24 November, that the isolator switch had a fault, and that the wiring needed to be checked. A job was booked for 28 November.
  4. The landlord responded to the resident’s complaint on 25 November at stage one of its complaints process. It said that:

a.     It wished to apologise for the delay in the repairs to the shower at the property.

b.     Once the repair was reported, it was allocated to the landlord’s contractor so that it could attend to remedy the default.

c.      It could confirm that an electrician was due to attend the property on 8 December to check for a potential fault in the isolator-switch, following the report by the resident on 24 November.

d.     It strived to carry out works in a reasonable amount of time, but that sometimes through unavoidable circumstances this was not always possible. In this instance, a lack of materials to affect a full repair or replacement to the shower-unit had caused it to be less responsive that it would expect.

e.     It wished to apologise for the “serious inconvenience and distress” that the delays had caused the resident.

f.        If the resident was unhappy with the outcome of his complaint, he was entitled to progress the complaint to stage two of the landlord’s process.

  1. On 30 November, the landlord says it received a call from the resident who advised that the shower repairs were yet to be completed; and that the electrics kept blowing when the shower was in use. The resident also asked for his complaint to be escalated.
  2. The landlord has advised that internal communication over the 3 and 4 December detailed that the shower repairs had been completed.
  3. Communication between the landlord and the resident continued. On 17 December, the landlord emailed the resident and said:

a.     It noted that resident had discussed the complaint with a member of staff on 16 December; and during this conversation it had offered £100 compensation. This was to represent £50 for the delay in repairing the shower; and £50 as the resident still wished “for the complaint to be reviewed” by the Tenant Appeal Panel.

b.     the complaint had been discussed with senior staff; and it was felt that there was “no value” in the complaint being considered at the next stage of the landlord’s process. This was on the basis that the complaint had been upheld at stage one; and an offer of compensation had been made.

c.      If the resident remained dissatisfied, he could refer the matter to the Ombudsman.

  1. The resident contacted this Service in January 2021. He said that he remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s response for a number of reasons. These included:

a.     He had informed the landlord that members of the household were disabled, and unable to use the bath. He added that without the shower, there would be a “deterioration in personal hygiene”.

b.     The landlord had been informed that he and his wife were keyworkers; and during the Covid-19 pandemic, it was essential that they had access to a shower to protect themselves after shifts – in line with government guidance.

c.      The landlord took an “unacceptable amount of time” to resolve the issues, but would not permit them to seek a repair by other means.

d.     The repair which was carried out only “temporarily” fix the problem in order to get the shower working.

  1. After the complaint was referred to the Ombudsman, the Manager of the landlord’s complaints team contacted the resident. The Manager apologised that the resident had been informed that he could escalate his complaint when it had already been upheld. The resident was offered a further £25 for the loss of expectation – and was informed that this would be credited to his rent account. 

Assessment and findings

Repairs to the shower

  1. During the course of the complaint, the landlord acknowledged that the repair had been delayed and apologised to the resident. The landlord also offered the resident compensation for the inconvenience caused as a result of the delay.
  2. In correspondence to the Ombudsman, the landlord has advised that the repair was completed in 24 days – four days outside of its service standards. It has advised that as a bath was available, the residents would have been advised not to use the shower. However, given the delay in carrying out the repair, the complaint was upheld at stage one of its complaints process.
  3. The landlord’s response is not in keeping with the other evidence that has been provided to the Ombudsman. For example, whilst the landlord has advised that the repair was completed in 24 days from the initial report on 7 September, the records show that a repair was completed on 8 October. This was 31 days after the initial report. There is no evidence of any repair being attempted, or completed, 24 days after the initial report. Furthermore, the evidence does not suggest that a total repair was carried out on 8 October. The resident contacted the landlord on 30 November to advise that the shower repair had yet to be completed – and that a job was raised in response to this call. The landlord has also informed the Ombudsman that its internal communication over the 3 and 4 December show that the repair had been completed around that time.
  4. Therefore, whilst a repair was attempted on 8 October, it is not clear if this was a temporary repair. As the resident had cause to make a further report at the end of November, it would suggest that works remained outstanding. The landlord has not commented on this or acknowledged this in communication to either the resident or the Ombudsman. If the initial repair were a temporary fix, the landlord should reasonably have advised as such – and provided a date for when the repair would be completed – in line with its policy, as detailed above. This should have also been clearly explained when the landlord responded to the resident’s formal complaint.
  5. The landlord’s repair logs – which have been provided to the Ombudsman – are not sufficiently clear or detailed to enable this Service to reach a conclusion as to what work was completed on 8 October, what was logged following the call on 30 November, and what took place following this for the work to be regarded as completed on 3 or 4 December. It is not for the Ombudsman to speculate as to what transpired; however, that the landlord’s notes are not sufficiently detailed is a failing in itself. The landlord’s records should contain clear information about the initial report, the repair diagnosis, whether further works would be required and the likely timescales.
  6. It was appropriate for the landlord to acknowledge that the initial repair was delayed. However, from the evidence that has been provided to the Ombudsman, it does not appear that the landlord is fully aware of the repairs history and what transpired between 7 September when the first report was made, and 3 and 4 December when the works were regarded as completed.
  7. In correspondence to the Ombudsman, the resident raised concerns that members of the household were unable to use the bath owing to their disabilities. He says that as a result, their ability to maintain personal hygiene was impacted by the delay in completing the shower repair. The Ombudsman asked the landlord for its comments on this matter. In response, the landlord advised that it has no record that any members of the household have mobility issues or that the bath is unusable. It says that if it had been made aware, this would have been considered when the repairs were booked.
  8. The Ombudsman has reviewed the evidence that is available and has not found anything which suggests that the landlord was made explicitly aware that members of the house were unable to use the bathtub between September and December 2020. The resident’s comments in relation to this are not disputed; however, there is no evidence which suggests that the landlord was given information which should have led it to expedite the repair – or considered decanting the residents – while the repair was outstanding. The resident’s comments about he and his wife being keyworkers are also noted; however, the Ombudsman has not seen any contemporaneous evidence in relation to this either.

The landlord’s response to the complaint and its compensation offer

  1. The resident made a formal complaint to the landlord on 23 September. The landlord issued a response to the complaint on 25 November. In correspondence to the Ombudsman, the landlord identified that the complaint response was not sent in line with its policy, and that the complaint was not acknowledged once received. However, the Ombudsman has seen no evidence which suggests that the landlord acknowledged this delay – and departure from policy – when it wrote to the resident. Or that it apologised for the inconvenience caused by the delay. This was inappropriate – and a departure from the landlord’s complaints policy as detailed above.
  2. The resident was unhappy with the complaint response and asked for his concerns to be escalated. The landlord initially agreed to escalate the complaint; however, it subsequently declined to do so on the basis that the complaint had been fully upheld. This was inappropriate.

The landlord’s complaints policy states that a resident may escalate their complaint if they are unhappy with the response they receive. While it is noted that the complaint was upheld, the complaints policy does not stipulate that the landlord can decline to escalate a complaint on that basis. It is therefore unclear why the landlord refused to consider the resident’s complaint further. Furthermore, when asking to escalate his complaint, the resident had raised concerns that the shower was causing the electrics to trip – and this warranted investigation. By failing to consider the resident’s complaint further, the landlord missed an opportunity to engage with the resident and to try to resolve his concerns.

Determination (decision)

  1. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Scheme there was maladministration in:

a.     The landlord’s handling of repairs to the shower.

b.     The landlord’s response to the resident’s complaint.

Reasons

  1. When the landlord investigated the resident’s complaint, it acknowledged that the repair to the shower was delayed. It apologised for the inconvenience, and offered the resident compensation. From the evidence that is available, the Ombudsman cannot establish what transpired with the shower repair. It is acknowledged that the initial repair was delayed and that a further fix was later needed. However, the information that has been provided to the Ombudsman does not contain sufficient detail for this Service to assess the landlord’s action and determine whether they were appropriate. As such, the landlord should undertake a further investigation into the concerns raised by the resident; and provide a detailed response about its action and whether they were in line with its policy.
  2. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s formal complaint was inappropriate. The initial response was delayed; and the landlord failed to escalate the resident’s complaint in line with its policy.

Orders

  1. Within four weeks of the date of this determination, the landlord should:

a.     Reinvestigate its handling of the shower repairs and works that were carried out to the electrics within the property. The landlord may wish to contact the resident to obtain specific details about his concerns regarding the electrics so that these may be investigated further.

Once the landlord’s investigation is complete, it should write to the resident with a fully detailed chronology of events and outcome of its investigation.

As part of this process, the landlord should consider whether further compensation is warranted, taking into account its compensation policy.

b.     Pay the resident the £100 which was offered during the complaints process.

c.      Credit the resident’s rent account with the £25 which was offered in March 2021.

d.     Pay the resident a further £150 for the complaint handling failures identified by the Ombudsman.

Recommendations

  1. Within eight weeks of the date of this decision, the landlord should:

a.     Review its complaints policy giving specific consideration to the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code. The landlord has already advised that this policy is under review; however, it is not clear if this review will incorporate the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code. Nevertheless, the landlord should notify the Ombudsman of the outcome of its review and detail any measures that it intends to introduce to improve its approach to complaints and complaints handling.

b.     Review its record keeping process and consider whether any changes need to be implemented to ensure that it is recording accurate and detailed information in relation to repairs.