Harlow District Council (202209969)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202209969

Harlow District Council

18 January 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 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 the landlord’s handling of:
    1. The resident’s report that his toilet was not flushing.
    2. The associated complaint.

Background 

  1. The resident is a tenant of the landlord of a flat, and its records state that he has vulnerabilities.
  2. The resident reported to the landlord on 8 May 2022 that his toilet was not flushing, and that this was housed in a sealed unit that he could not unscrew. It attended this on 10 May 2022, but it was unable to gain access to replace the toilet’s siphon with a cistern because this was enclosed in a unit. On 25 May 2022, a job order was therefore raised by the landlord for a multi-trade visit to gain access through panelling to repair the toilet. The resident then chased it on 7 June 2022, as the works remained outstanding and, on 10 June 2022, it copied in its repair team to the email to raise another job for this.
  3. During the landlord’s internal communications which planned the repair, an email was sent to the resident which stated that “Tenant is not OAP and is not disabled. Toilet seats are tenant’s responsibility. We do not raise jobs for this.” The toilet was nevertheless subsequently repaired during a visit on 15 June 2022, when the system was overhauled by a plumber and a carpenter.
  4. The resident made a stage one complaint to the landlord on 10 and 17 June 2022 that it logged on 22 June 2022, however, and he expressed dissatisfaction at both the handling of the repair and its comments regarding his disability status. He explained how, when he had first reported this to it in May 2022, he had told it that the toilet was encased, and he was dissatisfied that in the first instance the plumber was unable to complete the work, because a carpenter was not sent to the property.
  5. The resident further complained that the landlord had regarded the repair issue to be about a toilet seat and not an issue with the flush. He said that its comments surrounding his disability status amounted to “abuse”, and he questioned its authority to make a judgement about his disability status.
  6. The landlord’s stage one complaint response of 19 July 2022 explained that it had investigated the cause of the repair delay and had found that it was unaware that the toilet was sealed in a unit, and that the repair had required a carpenter to attend this. It stated that the repair was then organised as soon as possible for a multi-trade ticket from 25 May 2022, and it apologised for the delay in arranging this and in providing an update on the stage one complaint due to a high workload.
  7. The resident subsequently escalated the complaint to the final stage of the landlord’s complaints procedure on 20 July 2022, as it had reported that it was unaware that the toilet was boxed in prior to their initial repair attempt, and he provided evidence showing that it had been informed of this on 8 May 2022. It then logged his final stage complaint on 29 July 2022.
  8. The landlord’s final stage complaint response of 2 August 2022 explained that the resident had informed it on 8 May 2022 that the toilet’s siphon was sealed, however this information was not passed on to the contractors who performed the repairs. It apologised for the misunderstanding and acknowledged the delay that he had experienced in receiving this repair.
  9. The landlord also investigated its email of 10 June 2022, which read “Tenant is not OAP and is not disabled”, and said that this was “not disrespectful” but had stated “facts” to provide further information to assist it. It nevertheless apologised if the resident found the tone to be disrespectful, and it requested that he provide it with verification documents and/or medical records so that it could update his vulnerabilities in its system.
  10. The resident subsequently complained to this Service on 4 August 2022, and he provided us with copies of emails exchanged by him and the landlord following its final stage complaint response. He reported that he thought that its email regarding his disability status breached equality and data protection legislation, was based only on sight and no other proof, and was inappropriate given that he had only reported to it that his toilet was not flushing. The resident also questioned why a contractor would receive his personal information, and disputed that his personal information was shared with them in the first instance. He sought for the landlord to acknowledge and apologise for any failures in its handling of the matter, and for the sharing of his personal information.

Assessment and findings

Scope of Investigation

  1. It is very concerning that the resident has suggested that he may have experienced disability discrimination and breaches of his personal data. However, in accordance with the Housing Ombudsman Scheme that governs us, this Service is unable to investigate or determine these aspects of his complaint, as we do not have the authority or expertise to do so, and they instead fall properly within the jurisdiction of the courts and the Information Commissioner’s Office, respectively, to consider instead.

The resident’s report that his toilet was not flushing

  1. The resident’s tenancy agreement states that the landlord is responsible for the repair and maintenance of his bathroom fixtures, including toilets. Its tenant repairs policy indicates that an emergency repair should be completed in under 24 hours, an urgent repair in under five working days, and a standard repair in under 20 working days.
  2. The landlord’s tenant repairs policy also outlines that, where a resident is considered vulnerable such as due to age or disability, they may receive an enhanced repairs service with quicker repair times. This includes it attending emergency repairs within two hours, urgent repairs in under three working days, and standard repairs in under 15 working days. Furthermore, the policy outlines that a “cistern refixing or replacement where unusable” constitutes an urgent repair, however this provides no details for siphon or flush repairs.
  3. The resident first reported to the landlord that his toilet’s flush was not working on 8 May 2022, and this was fixed on 15 June 2022, which was 26 working days later and therefore outside all of its tenant repairs policy’s emergency, urgent and standard repair timescales for both vulnerable and non-vulnerable residents. The reasons for this delay included that it did not initially attend this within the policy’s emergency repair timescales of two to 24 hours, as it instead initially did so 48 hours later on 10 May 2022.
  4. The resident had also informed the landlord from the outset on 8 May 2022 that the toilet’s cistern was sealed in a unit, however this information was not passed on to its repairs team. Therefore, during their initial visit with a plumber on 10 May 2022, a repair could not be completed, as a carpenter was additionally needed to get access to the toilet’s siphon to carry out the repair. This meant that it was appropriate that the landlord apologised to the resident for this misunderstanding in its complaint responses, and that these acknowledged the delay that this had caused in completing the repair.
  5. On 25 May 2022, a repair order was then raised by the landlord for a plumber and a carpenter to attend the resident’s property to carry out the repair to his toilet. There was no explanation given to him, however, for the delay in raising the repair order, or in subsequently completing this, which led to a further delay and inconvenience to him and was inappropriate.
  6. The toilet repair’s completion on 15 June 2022, 26 working days after this was first reported, was therefore outside of the landlord’s tenant repairs policy’s three to five-working-day timeframe for urgent repairs, and the policy’s 15 to 20-working-day timescale for standard repairs. The policy describes toilet cistern repairs as urgent, but this does not specify how siphon or flush repairs are categorised, although it would have been reasonable to have expected this to have been repaired urgently as this involved cistern repairs. As a result, while the complaint responses from the landlord apologised to the resident for the delay, it failed to consider offering him compensation for this, which was inappropriate.
  7. The landlord’s compensation policy does not outline compensation amounts for where there is a delay to provide a repair. This Service’s remedies guidance suggests compensation from £50 to £100 where there has been a failure in service by the landlord which has not fully been put right. It has therefore been ordered below to pay £100 compensation in recognition of the resident’s inconvenience for the delay in the repair to his toilet flush. This is because it partly put this failure right by apologising for and acknowledging this, and by completing the repair, but this was not proportionate to recognise the delay and his inconvenience fully, in accordance with our remedies guidance.
  8. It was appropriate that the landlord investigated the resident’s reports of a disrespectful email about him, which was sent from its contractor to it, and that he received the contents of. This Service would expect it to investigate this to understand the intended meaning of the original email, explain this to him, and apologise where appropriate.
  9. The landlord said in its final stage complaint response that it had completed a thorough investigation of the email that the resident was concerned about, but it failed to explain how it had investigated this, and the evidence that it provided to this Service also failed to show the steps taken by it to investigate his concerns. While it was not unreasonable for it to decide against disclosing details of internal staff and contractor disciplinary matters for reasons of confidentiality, providing him with an explanation of this, and additional details of the steps that it had taken, may have may have led to a more satisfactory complaint resolution.
  10. The landlord instead explained that the email that the resident was concerned about stated “facts” and was “not disrespectful”, but aimed to provide additional information to it as to why the repairs team would not perform the repairs to his toilet. This nevertheless referred to repairs of toilet seats when he had reported that his toilet was not flushing, and this described him as “not disabled” when its records indicated that he was vulnerable. It was therefore appropriate that that the landlord apologised to the resident if he found the tone of the correspondence to be disrespectful, as this acknowledged that this was incorrect.

The associated complaint

  1. In line with its complaints policy, the landlord is expected to acknowledge a complaint within three working days, respond to stage one complaints within ten working days, and to respond to final stage complaints within 15 working days. It is also required to communicate any extensions to these timescales to the resident.
  2. On 10 June 2022, the resident asked to make a stage one complaint to the landlord, which was logged eight working days later on 22 June 2022, but its stage one complaint response of 19 July 2022 was 27 working days after the complaint was originally made, which was 17 working days later than its complaints policy’s ten-working-day timescale. There is also no suggestion that it communicated the delay to the stage one complaint response to him, which was required by the policy.
  3. This delay was a failing on the part of the landlord, as it is expected to respond to complaints in a timely manner to minimise the time, trouble, distress and inconvenience caused to residents. Its stage one complaint response recognised that this was outside of its complaints policy’s timescale, and it appropriately apologised for the delay in providing the resident with an update on this due to a high workload.
  4. During the final stage of the complaints procedure, the landlord failed to acknowledge the resident’s final stage complaint of 20 July 2022, and it only logged this seven working days later on 29 July 2022. It then responded to the final stage complaint nine working days later on 2 August 2022, which was within its complaints policy’s 15-working-day timescale.
  5. However, the recurrence of the landlord’s failure to provide the timely logging of complaints was contrary to this Service’s complaint handling code, which outlines that complaints should be logged within five days of receipt. Its failure to do so during both stages of the resident’s complaint, and to acknowledge his final stage complaint, was therefore another failing on its part.
  6. The landlord’s compensation policy does not outline suggested compensation for where there has been a delay in logging a complaint, or in providing a complaint response. The resolution of the resident’s complaint was not prevented by its complaint handling failings, but this was unnecessarily delayed. This amounted to a failure, which the landlord did not appropriately address fully in its complaint responses, or provide a remedy to him for, other than an apology for its delayed stage one complaint response.
  7. The landlord has therefore been ordered below to pay the resident another £50 compensation in recognition of its poor complaint handling in his case, which is in line with this Service’s remedies guidance’s recommended range where there has been a failure in service by it that has not been put right fully. This is because its apology for its delayed stage one complaint response alone was not proportionate to recognise all of its complaint handling delays in line with our guidance.
  8. The landlord has also been recommended below to review its staff’s training needs regarding their application of its tenant repairs and complaints policies, and of this Service’s complaint handling code and remedies guidance. This is to seek to ensure that these are followed to prevent the delays in the resident’s case from occurring again in the future, and that any such delays are remedied appropriately.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure by the landlord in its handling of:
    1. The resident’s report that his toilet was not flushing.
    2. The associated complaint.

Order and recommendations

  1. The landlord is ordered to pay the resident £150 total compensation within four weeks. This is broken down as:
    1. £100 for its delays in providing a repair for the resident’s toilet.
    2. £50 for its delays in providing a stage one complaint response, and in logging the resident’s complaints.
  2. It is recommended that the landlord:
    1. Review its staff’s training needs regarding their application of its tenant repairs policy in relation to their communications about repair issues and priorities, to seek ensure that full and accurate details of these are promptly transferred between teams to deliver timely and appropriate repairs to its residents.
    2. Review its staff’s training needs regarding their application of its complaints policy, and of this Service’s complaint handling code at https://www.housing-ombudsman.org.uk/landlords-info/complaint-handling-code/ and remedies guidance at https://www.housing-ombudsman.org.uk/about-us/corporate-information/policies/dispute-resolution/policy-on-remedies/, to seek to ensure that these are followed to prevent its complaint handling delays in the resident’s case from occurring again in the future, and that any such delays are remedied appropriately.
  3. The landlord shall contact this Service within four weeks to confirm that it has complied with the above order, and whether it will follow the above recommendations.