Harlow District Council (202300449)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202300449

Harlow District Council

3 April 2024

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 the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports that a repair was required to his toilet.
2. The Ombudsman has also considered the landlords complaint handling.

Background

3. The resident has been a secure tenant at the property of the landlord since 26 November 2018. The landlord is a local authority. The property is a 4 bed house and the resident lives there with his family.
4. The resident reported to the landlord that his toilet continued to run after it was flushed on the 24 January 2023. At the request of the resident, the landlord attended the property on 24 February 2023 and undertook a repair.
5. The resident reported to the landlord, on the same date, that the repair had not been successful. In doing so, he raised a formal complaint which said the plumber had not changed a part but had squirted WD40 on the faulty part and informed the resident it was then fixed. The toilet was then used after the plumber had left and the fault reoccurred. The resident advised that he was going to arrange for his own plumber and that the landlord would need to cover the cost of that.
6. The landlord provided its stage 1 response on 8 March 2023. The key points were as follows:
   1. The landlord’s plumber had attended on 24 February 2023. They had inspected the drop valve and fitted a new seal and clip. The resident informed the landlord after the visit that the repair had not been successful.
   2. The landlord raised a new repair and when it contacted the resident to arrange a further appointment, on 27 February 2023, the resident advised he had arranged his own plumber to attend.
   3. The landlord apologised that the issue was not resolved during the first visit and assured the resident that the plumber had not used WD40 to resolve the issue.
   4. It did not uphold the complaint and advised it could not offer compensation.
7. The resident requested an escalation to stage 2 on 13 March 2023. He said the part had not been repaired or the seal and clip replaced. The resident confirmed he had kept the old part as evidence that the landlord was incorrect. He said the plumber had attempted to resolve the issue by using WD40 and his family had seen this happen. The resident said that he suffered loss of earnings every time the landlord attended to undertake a repair which is why he had decided to get his own plumber. In concluding, the resident advised he would not drop the matter until the landlord reimbursed him for the repair.
8. The landlord provided its stage 2 response on 30 March 2023. The key points were as follows:
   1. The landlord understood the resident was unhappy with the plumbing repair and wished to be reimbursed for the private plumber he had used.
   2. The landlord confirmed it had interviewed its plumber and checked stock records.
   3. It said the plumber had taken apart, and repaired the drop valve which it said could be done with lubrication. It said hard water in the area can sometimes affect the internal operation of the valve.
   4. When the plumber left the property, the part was working.
   5. It advised that an apprentice had attended on the same date and had been shown by the plumber what a repair of that part looked like. It confirmed the plumber who attended had 45 years’ experience in the industry and it believed the plumber would have replaced the part if required.
   6. It did not uphold the complaint and confirmed it stood by the information given in its stage 1 response.
9. In referring to this Service, the resident advised that he wanted to be reimbursed for the independent plumber he had used.

Assessment and findings

Policies and procedures

10. The landlord’s repair policy states that for a standard repair, this would be completed within 20 working days.
11. It states that with regards to the right to repair scheme, a resident can use the scheme to get small jobs fixed quickly where the council has failed to carry out a repair within a timely manner. It states these jobs must cost less than £250.

Repair

12. The resident first reported that his toilet cistern continued to fill after flushing on 24 January 2023. At the request of the resident the landlord attended on 24 February 2023. Although this is slightly outside of its policy repair times, this appointment was at the request of the resident and therefore reasonable in the circumstances.
13. The resident informed the landlord, on the same date, that the repair had not been successful. The landlord appropriately arranged for its plumber to reattend on the 27 February 2023. This was the next working day and demonstrated its commitment to the resident that it was taking their reports seriously and wanted to resolve the issue in a timely manner.
14. In his complaint, the resident advised that the plumber had not changed a part but had in fact sprayed WD40 on the part and subsequently left. The landlord advised that the plumber had installed a new clip and seal. This was confirmed in the repair log which stated that the job was completed, and a new seal and clip installed. The plumber also noted that the toilet was working when they left. The Ombudsman would expect a landlord, as part of a reasonable investigation, to inspect the repair logs and, where possible, consult its operatives.
15. In the resident’s escalation request, he said he had the original part which showed that the part had not been changed as the plumber suggested. Internal communications show that the landlord, at this point, sought to clarify if the plumber had in fact replaced the part; they had not. The landlord confirmed the clip and seal had been taken from the van, but that it had not been used. It advised the part had been fixed with lubrication. It was appropriate for the landlord to confirm with the plumber the nature of the repair given the resident’s assertions and the repairs log information available.
16. However, the stage 2 response was a missed opportunity to show the resident that the landlord had new information and that its position was that the part had been repaired, but not in the way suggested in its stage 1 response. This is of particular importance given the assertion at stage 1 that WD40 had not been used, when further enquiries suggested it had. Not providing this clarity would have frustrated the resident who had already asserted to the landlord that the repair had been with lubrication not a replacement of a part.
17. In making a complaint to the landlord, the resident requested a reimbursement for the cost of arranging for an independent plumber to fix the toilet. The landlord’s repairs policy states that residents may use the ‘right to repair’ scheme where landlords have failed to carry out a repair in a timely manner. While the landlord did not successfully resolve the issue during its first visit, it offered the resident a further appointment the next working day. The response to undertake the repair in this case was done in a timely manner. It is therefore reasonable, and in line with its policy that the landlord did not agree to reimburse the resident.
18. However, while in its stage 1 response the landlord said it would not provide compensation in these circumstances, it did not mention anything about this in its stage 2 response or link its reasoning to a policy. It would have been helpful for the landlord to have provided a clearer explanation to the resident why it was not going to reimburse the resident and link its explanation to the policy in question. Doing so would have helped the resident to understand its stance and would have been in line with the Dispute Resolution Principles.
19. It is important to note that the plumber asserted that the issue was resolved when they left, regardless of how the repair had been completed. The landlord is entitled to rely on the opinion of its qualified operatives when repairs are undertaken.
20. Overall, the landlord attended in a timely manner to conduct the repair and when the repair was not successful it offered the resident a further date the next working day. Furthermore, it was appropriate and in line with the landlord’s policy that it did not agree to reimburse the resident for arranging his own plumber; However, it would have been helpful for the landlord to have explained the reasons why to the resident and linked that to its policy.
21. Taking into account all the above, there was no maladministration in the landlords handling of the resident’s report that a repair was required to his toilet.

Complaints Handling

22. The landlord initially claimed, in its stage 1 response, that a new clip and seal had been fitted, and the repair was completed. The resident questioned the accuracy of this assertion stating that he had still had the original part, suggesting it could not have been replaced. It was then, following further investigation, that the landlord discovered that the specified part had not actually been used. This contradicted the landlord’s initial assertion, which had been supported in its stage 1 response. The Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code) highlights the importance of landlords conducting thorough investigations into complaints right from the start. Failing to do so in this case would have frustrated the resident who had to expend further time chasing an accurate response.
23. Furthermore, following the investigation at stage 2 and the new information gained that the part had in fact not been used, the landlord failed to disclose this fully to the resident. In accordance with Dispute Resolution Principles, it would have been appropriate for the landlord to share its updated position following its further investigation. Doing so would have fostered a better landlord-resident relationship and showed a commitment to transparency in the complaint investigation findings.
24. Overall, while the contractor is entitled and qualified to fix a repair in the way they establish is most appropriate, the landlord should ensure the information given to the resident is accurate. Failing to conduct a thorough investigation at the earliest opportunity led to the resident expending further time chasing an accurate response which the landlord then failed to give.
25. Therefore, given the lack of clarity in the landlord’s stage 2 response and for its failure to conduct a thorough investigation at stage 1, there was service failure in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Determination

26. In accordance with section 52 of the Scheme, there was no maladministration in the landlords handling of the resident’s report that repairs were required to his toilet.
27. In accordance with section 52 of the Scheme, there was service failure in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

28. Within 4 weeks of the date of this determination, the landlord should pay compensation to the resident of £75 for the initial limited investigation and lack of clarity its communication.

Recommendations

29. The landlord should consider further training for complaint investigators to support good outcomes at the earliest stage of complaint investigations.