Islington Council (202112423)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202112423

Islington Council

3 July 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:
1. management and handling of repairs to resolve damp in the resident’s bathroom, as well as associated works.
2. management and handling of the resident’s complaint.

Background and summary of events

Background

The resident is a secure tenant of a local authority. The tenancy began on 3 February 1997. The resident has no known vulnerabilities recorded by the landlord.
The property is a 3 bedroom basement and ground floor maisonette. The building is a grade 2 listed building and is located within a conservation area.
Listed buildings are protected by the Planning Act 1990 to ensure that any future alterations to a property are in keeping with its historic interest, and its unique character is not affected. Listed building consent (LBC) is required for all works of demolition, alteration or extension to a listed building that affect its character as a building of special architectural or historic interest. It is against the law not to seek LBC when it is required, under section 9 of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990.
The tenancy agreement sets out the rights and obligations of the resident and the landlord. The tenancy agreement states that:
1. the landlord is responsible for “keeping the structure and exterior of the property in repair, including: external walls, external doors, external window frames and sills; the internal structure; external decoration”
2. the resident is responsible for “maintaining and repairing the inside of the property including: internal decorations and finishes; internal fittings, including skirting boards”.
‘Wainscoting’ is a type of wall covering laid over a wall. ‘Cementitious tanking’, is a cement based material which can be applied to walls to create a barrier that water cannot penetrate.
The resident lives in a property, where the landlord’s housing services are delivered by a group of organisations through a private finance initiative, on behalf of the landlord. For the purposes of this report, this group of organisations will be referred to as PFI.
PFI employ a sub-contractor to deal with its planning applications. For the purposes of this report, this sub-contractor will be referred to as the PFI surveyors.

Relevant policies and procedures

PFI’s complaint procedure states:
1. “If it is the first time you have spoken to us about an issue, we will treat it as a service alert unless you tell us you want to formally complain”. PFI have 10 working days to respond to service alerts.
2. If the resident is not satisfied with the response to the service alert, a formal complaint will be raised.
3. PFI have a 2 stage formal complaints process. Stage 1 complaints are responded to by PFI within 15 working days. Stage 2 complaints are investigated by the landlord’s corporate customer service team on behalf of the chief executive within 28 calendar days of receiving a complaint (excluding bank holidays).
The landlord’s corporate complaints policy states:
1. that when a complaint is escalated to the chief executive investigation stage, “the reasons for a request for an investigation…and any new supporting evidence must be looked at by the receiving officer/service”
2. a review of the stage 1 investigation and its findings must be conducted as a stage 1 review, which “must be acknowledged within 3 working days and completed within 10 working days of receiving the new information”
3. “chief executive stage escalations will only be accepted after all the issues raised at stage 1 have been responded to”.
The landlord’s policy on compensation and remedies indicates that it will issue compensation to residents where there have been failures “to meet reasonable levels of service delivery”. However, it expects its contractors to pay compensation where they have their own compensation policy.
PFI has its own compensation procedure, which “should be read in conjunction with [the landlord’s] refund, compensation and remedies policy and their compensation guidance notes”. PFI may award compensation in respect of ‘disrepair’ or ‘severe inconvenience’. Assessments “should take into account the number of people living in the accommodation and thus affected by the problem, then consider how the problem is affecting the families’ ordinary everyday life. In a court of law, minor disrepair is viewed as worth from £500 a year up to £3,500 a year in very serious cases”.
The landlord states that PFI’s performance and service standards, including repair response times, are dictated by a document referred to by the landlord as “an output specification”. In relation to damp issues, this document states that responsive repairs are to be carried out in 28 working days, with a 42 working day “availability rectification period” (which incorporates responsive repairs timescales). PFI has provided this service with a process chart (February 2023), indicating its aim is to complete damp works within 12 weeks. It also states that planning process must be followed where a property is a listed building.
The PFI tenant handbook states that PFI aim to complete emergency work within 1 working day; urgent repairs in 3 to 7 working days; and routine repairs in 25 to 38 working days. “For major repairs, the repairs operative will complete a temporary repair and refer the issue to the major repairs team. We aim to complete all major repairs within 12 weeks of our first inspection. However, if there are leaseholders in the block we may need to consult them first”.

Scope of investigation

Paragraph 35(b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme states: “a complaint is duly made when it has exhausted, or the Ombudsman has decided it has exhausted, the members internal process for considering complaints”.
The landlord issued its stage 2 complaint response on 10 May 2022. This service asked the landlord to provide evidence related to this investigation to assist with the assessment and determination. Some of the information provided goes beyond the final stage 2 complaint response, and therefore is beyond the scope of this investigation. However, this investigation draws reference to events post the internal complaint process for reasons of context. The landlord has provided this service with a chronology of events pursuant to the resolution of the substantive repair issue. However, it has not consistently supplied this service with copies of the transactions related to those events. Where this is the case, this is noted.

Summary of events

The resident contacted PFI on 1 March 2021, to report a slow leak coming from under the bath, which was “constant when the bath was used”. The repairs log prioritised this as urgent work with a timescale of “3 working days”. It inspected the property 3 days later on 4 March 2021 and recorded tiles coming away from the wall, cracked tiles next to the mixer tap, tiles that needed grouting and the bath needed resealing. Plastic bags were fitted over the damaged wall as a temporary ‘make safe’. The repairs log show an order was raised to carry out necessary works, which was classified as routine works, with a timescale of “28 working days”.
PFI attended the property 14 working days later, on 5 March 2021. The repairs log noted that the resident was arranging for her bathroom to be refitted privately so “doesn’t need us”. In view of this, the job was marked as a tenant refusal. However, during the visit, she mentioned that her bathroom extractor fan was not working properly, which it prioritised as routine works, with a timescale of “28 working days”. The bathroom extractor fan was inspected on 10 March 2021. The fan was replaced 16 working days later.
The resident reported damp in her bathroom wall from the leaking bath on 8 March 2021. PFI prioritised the resident’s report as routine works, with a timescale of “28 working days”. PFI carried out a damp inspection 14 days later, on 26 March 2021. The inspection found some areas of plaster had blown due to leaks around the bath, most of the tiles had blown and were falling off the wall. Another ‘make safe’ repair was carried out, by removing some of the tiles, however some tiles were left in place. PFI attended the property on 16 April 2021 (14 days later), to complete works. However, after further assessing the scope of works, PFI deemed the works to be wider than originally thought. The landlord has indicated that in response, PFI raised a major works order on 20 April 2021. This service has not been seen with a copy of this works order, however it is noted that PFI wrote to the resident on 22 April 2021, scheduling a further inspection to be carried out on 4 May 2021.
The resident expressed dissatisfaction with PFI’s handling of repairs required in her bathroom on 23 April 2021. The resident said:
1. the bathroom had been in a bad condition for years. Tiles were “bulging off the wall”, the grout was “rotten and weak causing water leakage”, and “the plaster on the back wall is very damaged as a result”
2. a team attended the property on 4 March 2021 and replaced the bathroom extractor fan, which was broken. She said they could not deal with the tiles on the day but said they would get back to her about next steps
3. a damp inspection was carried out on the 26 March 2021, when it was recommended “that the tiles should be removed and replaced, and the affected wall plaster hacked off and redone”. The resident said that she received a call stating that the work would be done on 16th April 2021
4. a team attended the property on 16 April 2021, but could not remove the tiles or address the damaged wall plaster because they were considered “major works”. They said they would return. When she chased them, they booked another inspection for 4 May 2021. The resident said that this was “totally unacceptable”, since this would be the 5th inspection since March 2021, and still no work had been completed
5. “this is a major health and safety issue for me and my family, which is simply being deferred again and again”. The resident expressed difficulty washing “because of the hazard of tiles falling on us in the bath, as well as the need to dry the area out”. She said that her adult daughter was a paediatric nurse and “this situation is causing her serious stress in trying to maintain very strict hygiene standards in a highly unsatisfactory situation”
6. she wanted the tiles to be removed and wall replastered, and the plaster on the damaged wall to be removed and also re-plastered.
On 2 May 2021, PFI’s surveyors said that they would prepare documents for the local authority planning team, however they noted that it would take several weeks for the planning officer to respond and if they require an application, then “we will need to wait for that to be determined”. It said, “we are effectively asking if they agree that localised repair, albeit in cement, is maintenance rather than development. The conservation officer will want to argue that the cement is detrimental to the building”.
At the inspection on 4 May 2021, it was agreed that a specialist contractor should be employed to carry out a damp survey of the bathroom. On 5 May 2021, PFI wrote to the resident to arrange a joint inspection with its damp specialist for 10 May 2021. The landlord has confirmed that PFI did not receive an inspection report from its damp specialist following its inspection, however it indicates that a quotation for remedial works was received on the same date. PFI wrote to the resident on 11 May 2021, stating that a specification had been received from its contractor regarding damp works. It expected the specification to be approved shortly, following which it would issue works to its contractor. The contractor would schedule an appointment with the resident directly.
The repairs log shows that PFI raised a further works order on 12 May 2021, to hack off tiles around the bath and the wash hand basin, and to ‘make good’ the wall under the tiles. PFI attended the property on 8 June 2021, to carry out this work. Being aware that the resident had previously expressed a wish replace her own tiles, the attending operative was directed to ask the resident to sign a disclaimer. This service has seen an undated photograph of a handwritten note, signed by the resident, stating that she agreed to “carry out follow on tiling works after the 150mm white wall tiles are removed”.
A chronology provided by the landlord indicates that instructions to apply for listed building control (LBC) were sent to PFI’s surveyor on 17 May 2021. PFI’s surveyor asked for more information on 20 May 2021, which led to a joint inspection being arranged for 21 May 2021. This service has not seen records detailing its instruction to PFI’s surveyor, nor the outcome of the inspection. However, PFI wrote to the resident on 25 May 2021, reiterating that a specification was going through the approval process and once approved, its sub-contractor would contact her to arrange an appointment. It added that “the property is a listed building and will require LBC prior to the commencement of works which can take up to 12 weeks to obtain”.
The same chronology indicates that on 9 June 2021, PFI’s surveyors requested PFI to review drawings prior to submission of the LBC application. PFI reviewed and returned the drawings to PFI’s surveyors on 15 June 2021.
PFI received the resident’s online form on 9 June 2021, which the resident had sent on 23 April 2021, expressing dissatisfaction with PFI’s handling of repairs required in her bathroom. It logged the resident’s communication as a ‘service alert’. PFI attribute the delay in responding to the resident’s dissatisfaction, to an issue with its online reporting form.
The landlord has indicated that PFI responded to further queries from its own surveyors on 21 June 2021, and thereafter reissued instructions to seek LBC. This service has not seen a record of these communications, nor a copy of the instructions to reissue the planning application.
PFI responded to the resident’s ‘service alert’ on 23 June 2021, it:
1. apologised for any dissatisfaction with its service and “for multiple inspections required to diagnose the best way to resolve the issues on a permanent basis”
2. said it was sorry for its delayed response to the resident’s complaint, which had been caused by “an issue with its online form, only identified on 9 June 2021”. In acknowledging this delay, it awarded £25 in vouchers
3. explained the action it had taken between 1 March 2021 and 21 May 2021
4. explained that before works could commence, aspects of the proposed works required LBC, which had been “initiated on 17 May 2021”. After resolving some issues with the specification, “an application for LBC was submitted on 21 June 2021”. However, it said this process was “outside of its control”
5. identified “2 streams of works being carried out in the bathroom, which could have contributed to some misunderstanding and confusion. The identified damp works are to the wall opposite the bath and are not related to the tiling around the bath. Due to the damp works required and the listed building status of the building, we have to wait on the approval before these works can start”
6. said that it understood that the resident may wish to use her own tiles or carry out works herself, however understood that she would like the wall above the bath prepared to allow this
7. responded to comments made about the condition of the bathroom and not being able to use it properly. It had asked its repairs team to book an appointment to prepare the wall to receive decoration. It apologised for the delay experienced from 8 June 2021 in arranging this.
Emails between 1 July 2021 and 11 August 2021, show PFI chased its own surveyors for updates several times about its LBC application. An update was received from PFI’s surveyors on 7 July 2021, suggesting that the application for LBC was unlikely to be well received by planners. But it was meeting with planners the week commencing 12 July 2021, where it hoped to progress the idea of using lime plaster. Internal communications suggest that the resident was updated by telephone on 4 August 2021 and 11 August 2021, however no notes detailing the content of these conversations have been seen by this service, nor was the resident provided with a written transcript of the discussions.
The landlord indicates in its chronology, that PFI’s surveyors proposed wainscoting on 23 August 2021, following an informal conversation with the local authority conservation team. Furthermore, PFI’s surveyors and damp specialist discussed proposals of works, which were sent to the local authority planners for a response on 24 August 2021.
The resident contacted this service on 31 August 2021, asking for assistance with her complaint. This service asked the landlord to provide the resident with a written response by no later than 29 September 2021.
The landlord indicates that PFI chased its own surveyors on 17 September 2021 and 6 October 2021, for an update in respect of its LBC application. This service has not seen records showing that PFI chased for an update.
PFI wrote to the resident on 17 September 2021, acknowledging her stage 1 complaint and advising that it would provide a response by 6 October 2021 (15 working days). PFI provided its stage 1 response on 6 October 2021, as follows. PFI:
1. referenced a clarification discussion between it and the resident’s son on 5 October 2021, when aspects of the resident’s complaint were discussed in more detail
2. confirmed its understanding of the resident’s complaint, noting that it related to “the handling of the damp works to the property”, “specifically, in the bathroom and hallway wall backing the bathroom”. It noted that the resident was “unhappy with the time taken to agree a resolution and complete the necessary works” and that she had raised concerns about complaint handling
3. acknowledged that the resident would like to decorate the bathroom but was unable to do this before the works were completed
4. said that it had submitted an application for LBC on 21 June 2021. Despite regularly following this up with PFI’s surveyors, the situation remained unchanged, as had been communicated to her on 11 August 2021
5. said that further queries had been received on 23 August 2021 around the scope of works and materials proposed. “These issues were raised as we had recently had a similar project refused works approval. To limit the possibility of this application for the work to your home being refused, changes had to be discussed, scope rewritten and then had to be resubmitted to the planning team”
6. said “the delay in works starting are primarily due to the queries being raised on the scope of works. These are being raised before submitting our application to enable us to achieve the necessary level of works to have listed building approval. Unfortunately, as you have already been advised this can be a lengthy process, the majority of which is outside of our control”
7. said “we are still waiting on the necessary LBC and cannot commence any works without it”. It could not give an estimate of when this might be granted for which it apologised, but said it would keep her informed
8. said “should there be any remedial works needed, for example any mould build up that we can come and remove for you, please let us know and we will arrange a visit to address”
9. said in relation to complaint handling, it received the resident’s initial concerns on 10 June 2021. However, due to an IT issue, it did not receive her online form of 23 April 2021. Its decision to log her initial concerns as a ‘service alert’, rather than a stage 1 complaint was based on the nature and content of her report, and was in line with its complaints policy
10. arranged for its major works team to provide updates (every 3-4 weeks) until the LBC application was approved.
The resident wrote to PFI on 17 October 2021, asking for her complaint to be escalated to stage 2. She said:
1. its response was unclear, confusing and did not adequately explain the delays
2. she was informed that the LBC would take up to 12 weeks to obtain, but it had not explained the delay properly
3. she raised several queries:
  1. why did it take more than a month to apply for the LBC?
  2. when did it instruct its surveyors?
  3. when were queries relating to the scope of works raised by the surveyors?
  4. when was the scope of works resubmitted to the planning team?
  5. why was it not possible to give an estimate of when LBC will be provided?
  6. why is LBC required, as the works required are not structural?
4. pointed out that she never received the vouchers promised on 23 June 2021
5. stated that her desired outcome was to be notified of a date for the commencement of works, for the complaint be treated with urgency, and for it to respond to the queries raised.
The landlord indicates that PFI chased its own surveyors for an update on the LBC on 22 October 2021. This service has not seenrecords evidencing PFI’s update request.However, information later provided in the landlord’s stage 2 response indicates that on 25 October 2021, PFI’s surveyors advised that wainscoting was the recommended way forward, which had been suggested during an informal conversation with a local authority conservation officer.
PFI acknowledged the resident’s communication as a stage 1 review. It said that it would respond by 1 November 2021 (10 working days). PFI wrote to the resident with its stage 1 review decision on 1 November 2021, in which the decision remained unchanged. PFI said:
1. it was sorry for the delays “experienced during the processing of the necessary LBC, ahead of our commencement of works”
2. “LBC approval is required because the property holds a listed buildings classification and procedures must be adhered to, in line with their regulations”
3. “the 12 week time frame provided in our letter of 25 May 2021, was a guide to normal expected turnaround. Where enquiries are raised, these must be addressed to ensure approval is granted”
4. “between 17 May 2021 and 21 June 2021, our major works team were liaising with our application surveyors to meet the requirements for the application. We were able to use knowledge gained from other applications, with similar resolutions that were not granted approval. This required information be provided to support the chosen resolution”
5. “considering the attention to detail required and the coordination between our major works team, our damp contractor and surveyor”, it did “not deem an undue delay took place”
6. in answer to the questions raised by the resident it said:
  1. the surveyor was initially instructed on 17 May 2021, to prepare its application for subsistence by 4 June 2021
  2. “on 10 April 2021, the scope of works were identified, however, identifying what works were deemed required, did not include the method to be used or account for LBC approval”
  3. the queries raised by its surveyors “related to the method and the materials being suggested, and a LBC preference for a lime based solution”
  4. it apologised if it was not clear on the scope of works, as opposed to how the work would be carried out
  5. its application for LBC was submitted on the 21 June 2021. However, processing delay was “outside of [its] control”. Neither could it give an estimated timescale for LBC approval because the process was not controlled by it
  6. “in general terms LBC is required for all works of demolition, alteration or extension to a listed building that affect its character as a building of special architectural or historic interest. These would include the render and plaster used in these works and have to be in keeping with listed building control specifications”
7. it apologised if the vouchers had not arrived and confirmed that it would arrange replacements
8. advised the resident if she remained unsatisfied with the outcome of the stage 1 review, she could request that the complaint be investigated at stage 2 of the complaints process (the landlord’s chief executive stage).
The resident asked PFI on 3 November 2021, to share the planning application reference number with her, for its LBC application. PFI told the resident on 17 November 2021, that the LBC application number was “not currently available”. It said this would normally be provided “once consent had been given, at the end of the process”.
The landlord indicates in its chronology, that PFI approached its damp specialist on 16 November 2021, to assist with wainscoting. However, on 17 November 2021, its damp specialist said that wainscoting was outside of its works remit. PFI then approached an alternative contractor on 18 November 2021, to quote for wainscoting. Evidence of the damp specialist’s response has not been seen by this service, nor the subsequent instruction for a quotation of works from an alternative contractor.
The resident raised a stage 2 complaint on 18 November 2021. In her stage 2 complaint, the resident:
1. listed the events that had taken place since submitting her initial complaint on 23 April 2021:
  1. PFI had promised vouchers for its delayed response to her complaint, which had not been received
  2. a major works order was raised on 20 April 2021
  3. a letter was received from PFI stating that the proposed works required LBC which could take up to 12 weeks to process
  4. an application for LBC was submitted on 21 June 2021
  5. she had called the major works team on 11 August 2021 for an update, however they were “vague”
  6. she contacted the Housing Ombudsman Service in late August 2021, however the Ombudsman referred the matter back to PFI
2. PFI had told her that the LBC application was “holding up matters”. When she queried the breach of the 12 week service timeline standard, PFI said that “it was out of their hands, as planning matters were handled by a separate entity, namely planning services”. However, after conducting her own research, she had learned that the local planning authority had a 13 week processing standard
3. she suggested that if PFI had submitted its LBC application on 21 June 2021, a decision should have been made by 13 September 2021. Moreover, the local planning authority had no LBC application on record in connection with her property
4. the local planning authority could not confirm if LBC was necessary without a full assessment. To progress this, she required the planning application reference number for the LBC, but PFI had suggested this was only available once consent had been granted. She believed this information was incorrect and that reference numbers would be allocated by the local planning authority as a matter of course
5. she believed that PFI had “failed to act in a forthright and honest manner in their dealings with me”. In which case, the scope of her complaint should be widened to include the provision of “false information to a tenant in order to avoid the fulfilment of its obligation to repair an unsafe and unhealthy situation in her home”
6. she suggested that the most logical explanation for the delay in securing LBC, was that PFI had not submitted an application.
The resident’s stage 2 complaint was acknowledged by the landlord on 19 November 2021 and accepted for investigation on 22 November 2021. However, it advised that due to a “high volume of chief executive requests” it could not start its investigation at that time. In the meantime, it had registered the complaint and would tell her when the investigation was to begin. After the resident asked for an estimated commencement date, the landlord gave an approximation of “3 months”.
In view of the potential delay in the landlord considering her complaint at stage 2, the resident asked this service for assistance with her complaint on 25 November 2021.
The landlord indicates that PFI was advised by its alternative contractor on 29 November 2021, that it was unable to quote for wainscoting. This service has not seen evidence of this advice.
The landlord wrote to the resident on 23 December 2021, confirming that it still had “a high volume of chief executive requests to complete”, and could not start its investigation.
The landlord indicates in its chronology, that PFI escalated matters to a member of PFI’s senior management team on 28 January 2022, who suggested that a conservation specialist should be contracted. The landlord also indicates that on 18 February 2022, PFI asked a carpentry specialist to quote for wainscoting. No internal records or communications have been seen by this service documenting these discussions or transactions.
This service asked the landlord on 9 March 2022, to advise the resident when it intended to commence works in the bathroom and to provide the resident with a response to her complaint by 23 March 2022. The landlord responded to this service on the same date, stating that it was unable to begin its investigation but “had requested an update on the outstanding bathroom works in the hope that these can be progressed in the interim”. As the landlord did not respond to the resident within the timescale given, this service wrote to the landlord again on 24 March 2022, asking the landlord to provide its response to the resident by 1 April 2022.
The landlord told this service again on 25 March 2022, that it was unable to start its investigation. It apologised for the delay in providing an update on the bathroom works. It said PFI were awaiting LBC approval. Following feedback from its own surveyors, who were managing the application process, new proposals were under negotiation which would be submitted in accordance with PFI procedures. PFI “could not provide an estimated date for the conclusion of the LBC process” but would “continue to chase the relevant parties involved”.
The landlord wrote to the resident and this service on 8 April 2022, confirming that its investigation had commenced and that a full response would be provided “in 20 working days”. In response, this service wrote to the landlord, requiring it to provide its final stage 2 response within the next 5 working days.
The landlord indicates that the carpentry specialist responded on 11 April 2022, stating that it would be unable to provide a quote for wainscoting works. No record of this advice has been provided to this service. However, a chronology in the landlord’s stage 2 response on 12 April 2022 indicates that PFI’s damp specialist had said they could carry out the works in lime render, as had been previously discussed with the local planning authority in consideration of other similar properties. However, it did not “recommend this to prevent the damp reoccurring”. It suggested that the local planning authority be asked if LBC would be agreeable with such a substitute finish. This service has seen no record of such an approach being made.
PFI wrote to the resident on 20 April 2022, apologising for the extensive delays with the LBC application. It said, a specification of works had been received for the damp works. “We were recommended to obtain a quotation for wainscoting to be installed at this property as an alternative to the cementitious tanking system due to the type and age of the property. Unfortunately, we have been informed by 2 of our specialist carpentry contractors that they would be unable to do this type of works, especially as wainscotting is not already in situ. We will be looking into the works being carried out in lime render as per the conservation team’s preference over the cementitious tanking system”.
In an email on 23 April 2022, PFI’s surveyors suggested that “you might argue that small and localised repairs in like materials do not require LBC. It might be presented that these do not affect the historical interest. You would not be removing lime plaster – only modern cement plaster”. It was noted that the cause of damp was ‘rising damp’, and the damaged plaster was not the original victorian plaster. It asked if PFI would like it to apply for a certificate of lawfulness, to try to progress the works via a different route.
The landlord issued it stage 2 complaint response (chief executive stage) on 10 May 2022, partly upholding the resident’s complaint. It:
1. apologised for the delay in responding to the resident’s complaint at stage 2 (chief executive stage) and offered £100 compensation as redress
2. provided a chronology of events and summarised the resident’s complaint
3. acknowledged and apologised for the inconvenience caused by the outstanding works in the bathroom and for her time and effort in her pursuing a formal complaint
4. said that it appreciated that PFI was “not responsible for the outcome of the LBC application” and acknowledged that they had “made enquiries on its progress and in sourcing a contractor”. However, it considered the letters sent to the resident “were uninformative and irregular”
5. said that, “good practice in this case, would have been to keep you updated regularly and provide explanations of the issues faced with the damp works and the delays”. It was sorry this had not happened
6. acknowledged delays in progressing matters whilst PFI waited for requested updates. It also apologised for the delay between the end of November 2021 and the escalation to its senior management team on 28 January 2022. It recognised that the resident was not kept informed whilst enquiries were on going, but PFI had been taking reasonable steps to try to progress matters with alternative contractors before escalation
7. acknowledged the breakdown in communication between PFI and its surveyors, whose failure to provide updates sooner regarding the LBC caused delays progressing matters
8. said that PFI would be applying for a certificate of lawfulness to try to progress via another route. However, noted that the local planning authority had said that the certificate of lawfulness would not be successful at this stage
9. said, the local planning authority had said that “the removal of the cementitious render and a replacement with something more suitable, and the wainscoting would require LBC. PFI need to decide exactly what they want, make sure it is sympathetic to the building and apply for LBC, as advised in august 2021”
10. partly upheld the complaint because, whilst some delay was unavoidable, more effective communication would have kept the resident updated and informed of the delays and difficulties faced. There were periods where PFI could have been “more insistent, proactive, and timelier in pursuing updates from [its surveyors] and chasing potential contractors”
11. said that whilst it was “unfortunate that a suitable contractor has not been found to carry out these specialised works….PFI are hopeful for a quick response and outcome”. In the meantime, it had created a designated contact within the major works team, who would stay with the case until it was resolved
12. offered £842 compensation in full and final settlement of the resident’s complaint, in recognition of her time and effort pursing the complaint and delays in progressing the works, and the distress and inconvenience caused during this time. This was in addition to the £100 for the delay in responding to the complaint at the chief executive stage. This was to be claimed within 1 month from the date of the letter.

Actions of note subsequent to the completion of the landlord’s internal complaint process

Records provided to this service indicate that PFI kept in contact with the resident following closure of her stage 2 response, through to completion of works on 2 November 2022. Whilst the landlord has provided evidence of written communications between the parties, records from telephone conversations with the resident have not been seen.
The landlord has told this service that it “experienced unavoidable delays as the required works to the bathroom required LBC”. It said that “the process took longer than anticipated, but the resident was kept informed of progress throughout the period”. Works were completed on 2 November 2022, which included the application of cementitious tanking over a rendered wall, a chemical injection, and various internal works to the resident’s bathroom.
The landlord advises this service that PFI’s surveyors did not advise PFI until 3 May 2022, that an application for LBC had not been submitted. Although it considered applying for a certificate of lawfulness, this too was not progressed. Furthermore, the local planning authority had confirmed that there were no conversations recorded against the property, between them and PFI’s surveyors. PFI “received instruction to go ahead with works from [its own surveyors] on the basis that the repair was deemed to be a localised repair, and provided the works were completed with like for like materials, LBC was not required”. Records have not been seen by this service of the decision to progress works in the absence of a successful application for LBC or a certificate of lawfulness.
The resident has since told this service that she was decanted into temporary accommodation on 12 September 2022 and moved back into the property on 7 November 2022, following completion of all necessary works.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s management and handling of repairs to resolve damp in the resident’s bathroom, as well as associated works.

It took 43 working days for PFI to confirm a scope of works to remedy the damp in the bathroom, following initial reports of damp on 8 March 2021. It is recognised that during this time, the resident and her family experienced difficulties bathing and maintaining a satisfactory standard of hygiene. However, it is also understood that it can take time for a landlord to investigate and prescribe a remedy when a matter is complex. This service considers that following the initial report of damp, as a first step, PFI acted reasonably by arranging inspections, carrying out works to ‘make safe’, seeking advice from its specialist planning expert, employing a specialist damp contractor to diagnose the damp and in securing a quotation and scope of works. However, following this there was a significant delay in PFI agreeing “the method of application and the materials to be used”, which relied on the outcome of its application for LBC.
Following the ‘make safe’ repair, the bathroom remained functional until the resident’s decant on 12 September 2022. However, while the landlord was awaiting the outcome of its application for LBC, and until the cause of the damp had been treated, this service recognises the resident’s frustration in being unable to retile her bathroom, which remained untiled until after she returned from her decant. Whilst it is appreciated that it was the resident’s choice to retile the bathroom herself, this was predicated on an expectation of a significantly earlier completion of works. Ultimately, the resident was required to wait a total of 16 months before she could carry out this work, which would have caused inconvenience and was a cause of significant frustration.
It is not in dispute that it took longer than PFI anticipated to resolve the issues of damp in the resident’s bathroom. The landlord referred to there being “unavoidable delay” in its stage 2 complaint response and subsequent to this, it told this service that “it experienced unavoidable delays as the required works to the bathroom required LBC”. Whilst it was likely that the requirement to consider obtaining formal planning consent created some degree of delay, this service does not agree that the overall delay was attributed to that alone. Moreover, it was unreasonable that it took the PFI 421 working days to resolve the damp issue and complete associated works. This far exceeded PFI’s turnaround time for major works, which its handbook states is 12 weeks (60 working days). During this time the resident did not have full enjoyment of her bathroom.
The central reason for the delay in competing works, was the assumption that proposed remedial works required LBC. In view of these works involving a localised repair, which might have been considered maintenance rather than development or an alteration, it would have been prudent for PFI to have made its own early enquires with the local planning authority before instructing a specialist to handle its application for consent. This would have allowed PFI to satisfy itself of the necessity to apply for LBC or other planning permission at an earlier juncture, speeding up the major works and keeping down costs where permission was not required.
Whilst PFI should have been able to rely on the advice given to it by its own surveyors, who were employed for their expertise in making planning applications, it was PFI who would be instructing the works and were liable for prosecution if works were completed without appropriate planning consents being in place. When PFI proceeded with necessary works in September 2022, they did so on a ‘like for like’ basis on the advice of the PFI surveyors. It is noted that no application for LBC or certificate of lawfulness was applied for. It therefore follows, that PFI decided that neither planning consent was required. Ultimately, had the landlord sought early pre-application advice from the local planning authority at the outset, the long delays experienced exploring LBC may have been avoided.
It is not in dispute that PFI and the landlord should have been more insistent, proactive and timelier in pursing updates from PFI’s surveyors and in procuring works or quotations from potential contractors. However, PFI demonstrated poor practice, by repeatedly seeking quotations from contractors to undertake wainscoting works, without first canvassing their interests. On 3 occasions, PFI sought quotations from contractors, who later advised that they did not carry out such work or had no interest in doing so. It is not in dispute that PFI could have escalated matters to its own senior management team earlier in the process. Neither is it disputed that the resident was not kept adequately informed or updated about delays and difficulties faced. This is all recognised by the landlord and acknowledged in its stage 2 response.
However, the landlord also maintained in its stage 2 response, that PFI were “not responsible for the outcome of the LBC application and acknowledge they made enquiries on its progress and in sourcing a contractor”. This response shows a lack of understanding around PFI’s role, who was ultimately responsible for ensuring that permissions were obtained in a timely manner. This service has not seen evidence of an appropriate level of oversight of PFI. There was also a lack of oversight by PFI over its own surveyors and the application for LBC. Had there been a more effective, cohesive approach, PFI would have been aware sooner than 3 May 2022, that its application for LBC had not been submitted. It would not have misinformed the resident and could have regained control of the situation at an earlier stage. Ultimately, the impact on the resident was a loss of trust, as well as increased levels of disappointment and frustration.
Erosion in the tenant landlord relationship is also evident from the resident’s response, after PFI incorrectly informed her that planning reference numbers were provided at the end of the planning process. This prompted the resident to question PFI’s honesty and doubt that an application for LBC had been made. Given the resident’s comments, it was inappropriate that PFI, nor the landlord, sought to address the resident’s statement of mistrust or review its advice. Had it done so, it might have realised earlier that there was an issue with its application for LBC, but ultimately it could have apologised and corrected the misinformation provided. This would have gone some way to rebuild trust with the resident.
Overall, there was maladministration in the landlord’s management and handling of repairs to resolve damp in the resident’s bathroom, as well as associated works.

The landlord’s management and handling of the resident’s complaint

The Housing Ombudsman’s 2020 Complaint Handling Code (the Code) states that “a complaint shall be defined as an expression of dissatisfaction, however made, about the standard of service, actions or lack of action by the organisation, its own staff, or those acting on its behalf, affecting an individual resident or group of residents. The resident does not have to use the word complaint in order for it to be treated as such”.
It is noted that the resident communicated her dissatisfaction with PFI’s handling of repairs to her bathroom on 23 April 2021, although PFI indicated that it did not become aware of the resident’s dissatisfaction until 9 June 2021, due to an issue with PFI’s online form. PFI apologised for its delay in responding to her concerns and awarded a gift voucher, which the resident did not receive and requested its reissue. However, in contravention of the Code, PFI did not recognise the resident’s communication as a complaint, despite having all the hallmarks of one. Instead, it treated the resident’s dissatisfaction as a service alert. It was unreasonable that PFI was unable to the recognise the difference between a service request and a formal complaint and take appropriate steps to channel matters accordingly and seek resolution. It was also inappropriate that this service had to intervene in asking the landlord to log the resident’s dissatisfaction as a stage 1 complaint.
The code also states that “a landlord’s complaints procedure shall comprise of 2 stages”. “The Ombudsman does not believe a 3rd stage is necessary as part of a complaints process but if a landlord believes strongly it requires one, it should set out its reasons as part of the self-assessment”. Whilst both PFI and the landlord’s policies indicated that they had a 2 stage complaint processes, the inclusion of a review of its stage 1 decision, in effect created 3 stages to its complaint process. In this case, the resident asked to escalate her complaint to stage 2 on 17 October 2021. After waiting for the outcome of her stage 1 review (the outcome of which remained unchanged), she felt obligated to progress her complaint to stage 2, as she viewed the earlier responses as inadequate and this created a protraction of the complaint process, which would added time, inconvenience and confusion for the resident.
The response timeframes outlined in the landlord’s and PFI’s complaints policies were not in line with the Code. However, according to information on both websites, this has since been corrected. Both websites also indicate that a stage 1 review is no longer required. This is also reflected in the landlord’s latest complaints policy dated March 2023.
It is noted that the landlord’s stage 2 complaint response was provided 98 working days outside of its 20-working day target. This was a significant failing. Complaint procedures provide a focus and framework for the timely resolution of complaints. In allowing the complaint to be delayed for so long before it was in a position to provide the stage 2 response, the landlord failed to meet the objective of its complaints procedure. Whilst it is appreciated that the landlord was experiencing high complaint levels at the time, the delay was nonetheless unreasonable, resulted in further intervention from this service and further delayed a satisfactory resolution for the resident.
This service considers that the landlord’s response at stage 2 was constructive in that it apologised for the inconvenience caused to the resident by its delay in completing outstanding works. It acknowledged the resident’s time and trouble pursing her complaint and some of its failings. It assigned a designated contact to the resident, who would work with the resident until a resolution had been reached. Finally, it made a reasonable offer of compensation, in the sum of £942. Whilst this significant improvement on earlier stages in the complaint process, the stage 2 response was not issued until 12 months after the resident raised her first expression of dissatisfaction.
Under the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, a member landlord “must provide copies of any information requested by the Ombudsman that is, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, relevant to the complaint”. This may include “any internal files, documents, correspondence, records, accounts or minutes of meetings”. The landlord helpfully provided this service with a chronology, which provided a summary of events in this case. However, in line with the scheme, the landlord was also reasonably expected to have provided records to substantiate the events that took place. The absence of these records was inappropriate, and implies an issue with the landlord’s record keeping.
When considered cumulatively there was severe maladministration in the landlord’s management and handling of the resident’s complaint.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman scheme, there was maladministration in respect of the landlord’s management and handling of repairs to resolve damp in the resident’s bathroom, as well as associated works.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman scheme, there was severe maladministration in the landlord’s management and handling of the resident’s complaint.

Reasons

The landlord unreasonably delayed in completing repairs to resolve damp in the resident’s bathroom, as well as associated works. The landlord did not keep the resident adequately apprised and at times misinformed the resident. The landlord sought quotations from contractors who later declined interest in carrying out works. Final completion of works far exceeded the landlord’s service level standards for major work and caused inconvenience to the resident. It is noted that whilst the bathroom remained functional, the resident did not have full enjoyment of the bathroom for 421 working days.
The landlord did not recognise the resident’s initial expression of dissatisfaction as a formal complaint. There was an unreasonable level of involvement required from this service before the landlord accepted the complaint at stage 1, and in encouraging the landlord to investigate the stage 2 complaint in a timelier manner. Early responses failed to offer the resident confidence that matters were being adequately managed. The complaint process was protracted by additional stages. The landlord attempted to put things right by apologising and making a reasonable offer of compensation, however the complaint was not concluded for over 12 months, causing inconvenience, frustration and distress.

Orders and recommendations

Within 4 weeks of receipt of this report, the landlord must pay compensation of £1,100 to the resident, reduced to £158 if the landlord has already paid £942 in compensation previously offered to the resident. This award is broken down as follows:
1. £300 in recognition of the resident’s time, effort and inconvenience, in respect of the landlord’s management and handling of repairs to resolve damp in the resident’s bathroom, and associated works;
2. £800 in recognition of the inconvenience, time, trouble and distress caused to the resident, in respect of its failures in complaint handling.
The landlord must provide evidence to this service that it has complied with the above orders, within 4 weeks of the receipt of this report.
Within 6 weeks of receipt of this report, the landlord must initiate and complete a review of the leaning in this case and advise this service of its intentions. This review must include as a minimum:
1. enhancements to its existing oversight processes, where works require LBC and involve third party management agents;
2. enhancements to ensure that it has available suitable contractors capable of delivering specialist works such as surfaced in this case;
3. ensure it has in place additional oversight and quality assurance of its complaint investigations and findings.
The landlord must bring into its operations any identified improvements within 3 months of the date of this report.