East Devon District Council (202119257)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202119257

East Devon District Council

13 March 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 handling of:
1. The installation of a new water tank serving the resident’s property.
2. The removal of the polystyrene tiles from the living room ceiling.
3. The associated complaint.

Background

The resident is a secure tenant of the landlord. The property is a house.
The property has been undergoing a number of planned works, funded through the Green Homes Grant project. This work included a heating system upgrade, with a renewable air source heat pump, that was bespoke to the property in design. Further planned work on the property included rendering, roofing, guttering, facias, windows and painting of the external walls.
The upgrade of the heating system required a new water tank to be installed. This was to be fitted in the airing cupboard of the small bedroom, where the old tank had been housed. A survey was carried out in advance of this work. It highlighted the airing cupboard would need to be extended, to house the new water tank. The resident told the landlord that they would not allow the airing cupboard to be extended beyond 20mm. This was due to the already limited space within the bedroom.
The landlord’s contractor hired a sub-contractor to complete the upgrade of the heating system. This included the installation of the new water tank.
In June 2021, the resident contacted the landlord during the installation of the new water tank. The resident told the landlord they were unhappy with the quality of the work being carried out by the sub-contractor. The resident believed the sub-contractor demonstrated a lack of experience and questioned their professional competence in carrying out the installation. The resident provided the following examples of their concern to the landlord:
1. The space required for the new water tank continued to be extended.
2. The sub-contractor had attempted to drill through the property’s chimney stack, which was outside standard practice.
3. The sub-contractor appeared to struggle to drill through a wall, that had previously been drilled in five minutes, without issue during previous works.
4. The sub-contractor had cut through floorboards and completed an unnecessary, elaborate pipe system to the water tank. This added to many points of potential failure within the new pipework.
The resident stated that the only response they received from the landlord regarding their concern over the quality of the installation, was when it told them “To allow the contractor to do whatever they want.”
On the day the sub-contractor completed the installation, and within 40 minutes of them leaving the property, the new pipework failed. This caused a mains water leak into the kitchen of the property. The landlord refused the resident’s request for a different contractor to carry out this repair. The resident responded by not allowing the original sub-contractor access to the property unless the landlord was also in attendance. The landlord visited the property on 25 June 2021 with its contractor and carried out an inspection of the water tank. It then directed the sub-contractor to correct the installation of the new water tank in line with the resident’s concerns. This included re-positioning the tank and correcting the pipework. The corrective works meant there was no requirement to extend the size of the airing cupboard to accommodate the water tank.
The resident made a complaint on 21 June 2021 about the landlord’s handling of the installation of the water tank, including the delays following the leak. This delay led to the resident being without heating for 17 days.

The landlord provided its stage one complaint response 39 days later. The resident then raised a further stage one complaint in relation to the landlords handling of on-going repairs to the property. The resident was unhappy that it had been ten weeks since the landlord had removed only half of the polystyrene tiles from the lounge ceiling. It had been seven weeks since the resident met with the landlord during which they showed the landlord the outstanding maintenance jobs. The resident stated that landlord’s continued response was. “It will get done at some point.”
In its second stage response, the landlord apologised for its delays, poor communication and customer service during the work to install the new heating system to the property. It also provided an update that the remaining works to the property had since been agreed, and a pre-start meeting had been arranged with the resident. It made it clear that it was responding to both of the stage one complaints made by the resident, within this final response.
The resident contacted this service on 20 December 2021. The resident is seeking at a minimum, a personal apology from the landlord’s employees, who handled the installation of the new water tank, the on-going repairs and their associated complaint. The resident would also like an explanation from the employees, as to why the landlord behaved in the manner it did.

Assessment and findings

Relevant policies and procedures

The landlord’s responsive repairs policy sets out, that it aims to achieve the right repair by setting a high standard of workmanship, for its contractors and staff. It also states that it will listen to any problems that tenants have about repairs and try to put them right. Section 15.2 of this policy also states that post work inspections would be carried out when a customer is dissatisfied, because:
1. The repair carried out has not rectified the problem; or
2. The quality of workmanship was not acceptable.
The landlord operates a two-stage complaint procedure. When a complaint is received, the landlord aims to respond within 20 working days. If it cannot achieve this, it states it will tell the resident and confirm when a full response will be provided. If the resident is not satisfied with this response, they can escalate the complaint to stage two, when the landlord will again, aim to respond within 20 working days.

The installation of a new water tank.

The resident agreed to extend the airing cupboard by 20mm, to house the new water tank. They then agreed to extend it to a maximum of 25mm with the sub-contractor during the week of the installation. As the installation of the new water tank progressed, the resident attempted to contact the landlord regarding their dissatisfaction of the installation by phone and email but did not receive a response.
It was appropriate in the landlord’s final response that it acknowledged its service failure, regarding its customer service and poor communication with the resident, during the installation of the new water tank. It was also right the landlord apologised for failing to carry out an inspection, in response to the resident’s concerns about the quality of the water tank installation.
The landlord responded to the water leak in four hours. This was in line with the timescale of four hours for emergency repairs, as listed in the landlord’s repairs policy. Therefore, this was a reasonable response to this issue. The resident refused the sub-contractor access to the property to repair the leak because of their concerns about the contractor’s conduct. The resident drained the radiator system and turned the valve off to the heating themselves, to prevent further damage being caused. It was reasonable in the circumstances to request the landlord to accompany the sub-contractor, so that it could inspect the original work carried out and satisfy itself that the work was of an acceptable standard. It was a breach of its repairs policy, for the landlord not to do so.
The resident was not provided with a contact number for the relevant person within the landlord’s organisation and they had to search the internet to find this number. The landlord should have provided the resident with accurate contact information, and it should have responded to their calls and emails. The resident was inconvenienced by this lack of contact from the landlord.
Following contact from the resident, the landlord arranged to carry out the requested inspection, with its contractor on 25 June 2021. This was ten days following the original leak. The delay in the landlord’s response led to the resident being without heating for 17 days by the time the repair was complete. Under its right to repair policy, the landlord should have responded to the partial loss of water heating within three days. The resident is elderly, and the landlord’s records listed them as having vulnerabilities. It would therefore have been more difficult for the resident to be without heating for an extended period of time during the colder months of the year. This was an unreasonable delay, caused by the landlord’s failure to communicate effectively. The landlord has offered an apology in its final response. However, the Ombudsman believes suitable redress would be for the resident to be compensated, in order to reflect the distress to the vulnerable resident.
The landlord is responsible for the quality of the workmanship of the contractors it uses, to carry out repairs. It was right that the landlord had the sub-contractor correct the repair in line with the resident’s request. This resulted in there being no requirement for the cupboard to be extended for the installation of the heating system. The elaborate pipe work was also corrected to make so that it had fewer points of potential failure and took up less space.
The landlord’s redress was to apologise and correct the repair. This, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, does not fully reflect the impact, the delays and poor communication had on the resident. There was maladministration by the landlord for which compensation is appropriate. The landlord’s compensation policy states that it may issue discretionary compensation where standards have not been met. This includes where inconvenience has been caused to the resident. No amounts are specified in the policy. Therefore, the Ombudsman has used our own remedies guidance which sets out our service’s approach to compensation when looking at the amount of compensation which should be paid. The Remedies guidance suggests awards of £100 to £600 in cases where there have been failures by the landlord which affected the resident, but there may be no permanent impact from these failures. The landlord may have acknowledged failings and made some attempt to put things right but failed to address the detriment to the resident.

The removal of the polystyrene tiles from the living room ceiling.

The landlord’s repair policy states that it will arrange for non-urgent repairs to be completed as soon as possible. It also states that the work will be completed at a time that suits both the resident and the contractor.
It was therefore appropriate by the landlord, in its final response to have agreed a pre-start meeting with the resident over the further planned works to upgrade the property. This included to arrange the removal of polystyrene tiles from the living room ceiling. It was also right to provide the resident with a schedule of these planned works. This shows the landlord was willing to learn from its previous poor communication with the resident, regarding the upgrade to the property. It also provides a way in which the landlord could manage the resident’s expectation regarding each repair.

The landlord removed half of the polystyrene tiles from the ceiling on 2 June 2021. This was part of the planned upgrade to the property. The resident informed the landlord in August 2021 that this work was still unfinished. It was appropriate that the landlord included this work, as part of the pre-start meeting in September 2021. The resident should not have had cause to chase the landlord, to complete this repair to the ceiling and this would have added to their inconvenience.
The landlord does not specify timescales for its routine repairs. However, the Ombudsman expects the landlord to complete repairs in accordance with industry best practice. This is 28 days. As the landlord’s repairs policy does not include timescales for repairs, the Ombudsman has assessed the landlord’s handling of the repairs in line with industry best practice. It is best practice for landlords to complete routine repairs within 28 days. If there are unavoidable delays to a repair, the landlord should keep the resident updated and take reasonable steps to complete the repair as soon as possible.
In this instance, it was inappropriate that that the resident was left with an incomplete repair for three months. This was without a schedule of when it would be completed. The Ombudsman has not been provided with any information, that provided a legitimate reason for the delay and in the absence of such evidence, we can only conclude that the delay was unreasonable.
In the Ombudsman’s opinion, although the landlord made improvements to address its previous poor communication, it did not provide suitable redress in respect of its poor communication about the ceiling repair. This poor communication and the delays to the work, may have caused the resident further distress. In line with the Ombudsman’s own remedies guidance, as set out above, the landlord should pay the resident £100 for any distress and inconvenience they experienced as a result of the landlord’s poor communication and delays regarding the ceiling repair.

The associated complaint.

It was appropriate that the landlord apologised for taking 39 working days to provide its stage one complaint response to the resident. It had failed to provide notice to the resident, that it intended to provide a delayed response. This is in breach of its complaints policy, which states that it will acknowledge a complaint in five working days. It will then provide a full response within 20 working days.

The landlord accepted in its final response, that it initially misconstrued the resident’s complaint as being just about the installation of the water tank. As a result it was unable to effectively address that the resident’s complaint was about the way the landlord communicated with them, in relation to the installation. The stage one complaint response also detailed incorrect information regarding the extension of the cupboard. This along with the delay, caused the resident further frustration and inconvenience, as they were not receiving accurate and timely responses to their complaint.
The resident raised a further complaint about the ongoing repair to the ceiling, following the landlord’s stage one response. It was appropriate for the landlord to provide a second stage one response to the further complaint. It was good practice in this particular case, to then combine these matters in its final response to the resident. This made it clearer for the resident and prevented multiple responses, which may have been confusing in this particular case. This meant the later handling of the complaint was more efficient. This also demonstrated that the landlord had taken the time to understand all of the resident’s concerns. It was then able to provide a clearer, more structured response to the resident’s complaint in comparison to its stage one response.
Although there is an acknowledgment of service failure in the landlords handling of the resident’s complaint, the landlord has failed to provide adequate, or reasonable remedy for these failings. There was maladministration in the handling of the resident’s complaint, for which compensation is appropriate. In line with the Ombudsman’s own remedies guidance the landlord should pay the resident £100. This is an acknowledgment of the adverse impact caused to the resident, for the delay and poor communication within the landlord’s stage one response.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in respect of the landlords handling of the installation of a new water tank.
In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in respect of the landlord’s handling of the removal of the polystyrene tiles from the living room ceiling.
In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in respect of the landlord’s handling of the associated complaint.

Orders

For its maladministration and reasons set out above, the landlord is ordered to pay the resident:
1. £400 for the distress and inconvenience caused by its handling of the installation of the new water tank.
1. £100 for the distress and inconvenience caused by its handling of the removal of the polystyrene tiles from the living room ceiling.
2. £100 for its handling of the resident’s complaint.
The total amount the landlord is ordered to pay the resident, is £600 and the resident should provide evidence to this Service when this has been paid.

Recommendations

The landlord should provide a written apology to the resident for:
1. Failing to respond to the resident during the installation of the new heating system.
2. The delay in removing the outstanding polystyrene tiles from the living room ceiling.
The landlord should consider carrying out staff training to ensure that complaints are handled in line with its complaints procedure and the Housing Ombudsman Service’s Complaint Handling Code (available on the Housing Ombudsman Service website).
The landlord should consider adding timescales to its repairs policy for routine repairs to help manage expectations and set standards for this type of repair.