Islington Council (202201578)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202201578

Islington Council

30 June 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. Response to the resident’s claim for a personal injury.
2. Response to the resident’s request to replace bathroom fixtures to match.
3. Communications regarding cyclical bathroom improvements.
4. Response to the resident’s request to remove a disused fireplace, skirting boards and floor beading which contained asbestos.
5. Response to the resident’s request to relocate the kitchen extractor fan.
6. Response to the resident’s reports of repairs to plaster.
This service has also considered the landlord’s complaint handling and compensation.

Jurisdiction

What we can and cannot consider is called the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. This is governed by the Housing Ombudsman Scheme. When a complaint is brought to the Ombudsman, we must consider all the circumstances of the case as there are sometimes reasons why a complaint will not be investigated.
After carefully considering all the evidence, in accordance with paragraph 42(g) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the following aspect of the complaint is outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction:
1. The landlord’s response to the residents claim for a personal injury.
Paragraph 42(g) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme states that “The Ombudsman may not consider complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion concern matters where the Ombudsman considers it quicker, fairer, more reasonable or more effective to seek a remedy through the courts, other tribunal or procedure”.
This Service will not consider claims of personal injury, as these should be referred to the landlord’s insurers. Unlike the courts or insurance companies, we are not able to make a legally binding determination on whether the landlord has been negligent or whether it is liable for damages. Therefore, the resident’s request for this Service to investigate and determine upon her request for compensation is outside the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction in accordance with paragraph 42(g) of the Scheme. The resident may wish to consider a possible claim against the landlords insurers for any such losses.
The resident brought a previous complaint to this service, 201912481 which was determined in August 2020. Some issues raised within that investigation had not completed the landlord’s internal complaints process therefore were outside of jurisdiction in the previous determination. Having completed the landlords internal complaints process these are now included in this investigation, for clarity these are:
1. Repairs to the corner bead used to plaster a corner of the room.
2. Notification of cyclical works to the bathroom and a request to replace the bathroom fixtures to match.

Background and summary of events

Background

The resident is a secure tenant of the landlord, a local authority, the tenancy started on 5 February 2019. The property is managed on behalf of the landlord by a tenancy management organisation (TMO). The property is a one bedroom flat on the first floor. The landlord has no vulnerabilities recorded for the resident.
The tenancy agreement advises, asbestos-containing materials do not pose a risk to health if in good condition. It also states the landlord is not legally required to survey nor remove asbestos within the property unless a repair is required.
The tenancy agreement also advises if the landlord carries out repairs that involve damaging the decorations in or the property, it will “make good the damage or offer a decorations allowance”.
Section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 details the landlord’s repair obligations as:
1. “To keep in repair the structure and exterior of the dwelling-house”,
2. “To keep in repair and proper working order the installations in the dwelling-house for the supply of water, gas and electricity and for sanitation (including basins, sinks, baths and sanitary conveniences, but not other fixtures, fittings and appliances for making use of the supply of water, gas or electricity)”.
The landlord’s complaints policy operates a three-stage complaints process. At stage one, the landlord should respond within 21 calendar days. If the resident remains dissatisfied with the landlord’s response, they can ask for their complaint to be reviewed. The landlord should then issue a stage one review response within ten working days. If the resident remains dissatisfied, they can then escalate their complaint to stage two. At stage two, the complaint will be reviewed by the chief executive and a response should be issued within 28 calendar days. If, at any stage, there is likely to be a delay, the landlord would be expected to contact the resident, explain the reason for the delay and provide a new complaint response timescale.
The landlord’s complaint policy states complaints that have already been through the complaints procedure or have been investigated by the Ombudsman “should not be investigated again”.
The policy also advises that TMO’s have their own complaints investigation procedures but they are required to log complaints on the landlord’s complaints system and respond within the timescales set by the landlord.
The landlord’s housing repairs guide states in section 13.6, that tenants are responsible for any costs associated with asbestos testing, identification or removal works needed when carrying out improvement works.
The landlord’s factsheet on Asbestos says “damaged asbestos-containing materials can be repaired. Removal is generally a last resort”.
The landlord’s compensation guidance (May 2017) allows for £100 – £300 to “compensate the complainant for their time and trouble in pursuing a complaint” when their complaint has not been investigated properly or appropriate remedies have not been offered. This guidance also allows for compensation of £100 – £1000 for distress experience, with severe or prolonged stress from £300 – £1000.

Summary of events

On 19 January 2021 the resident wrote to the landlord stating she wished to complain about the following matters:
1. After stripping the wallpaper, she found “cracks on the walls and ceiling” of the living room and hallway.
2. No post inspection was carried out following repairs by a contractor shortly after the resident moved in. The resident felt the works had not been completed to a good standard.
3. The resident cut her hand on the corner of the hallway following a repair.
4. She requested the landlord plaster “where necessary in the living room, hallway, and kitchen” and “paint the repaired areas”. The resident advised that she believed the TMO had been communicating with the landlord on the matter.
5. The resident stated that the flooring in her property was “decades old with many broken tiles revealing the concrete floor underneath”. She wanted to install soundproof vinyl flooring however the original skirting board and floor beading meant she could not. The resident noted the skirting contained asbestos. She requested the landlord remove the skirting and beading so she could install flooring.
6. She also requested, if possible, for the landlord to remove an old electric fireplace, which also contained asbestos and had been boarded over, in case there were cracks behind the board.
7. A bath and toilet installed after she moved in were “mismatching”, the sink and the tiles were not replaced. The resident said the contractor completed the works to a poor standard. She highlighted the replacement of the toilet was a request from her occupational therapist due to her health problems.
8. The resident believed she should have been informed about an upcoming cyclical bathroom improvement, so that she could have made an informed decision about getting a fully refurbished bathroom. The resident requested the landlord replace the toilet, old sink, tiles and flooring in her bathroom.
9. The resident also requested the height of the bath be adjusted as she was finding it “very difficult to get in the bath” as it was installed higher than expected.
10. The resident requested the kitchen extractor fan be relocated.
11. The resident requested a separate waste pipe installed for her washing machine as water was filling her sink when she used her washing machine.
12. The resident said she asked for an inspection by the council but they did not send a surveyor. The resident “formally” requested a surveyor visit her property about all the above.
The resident concluded her complaint letter by stating she was “suffering from mental and physical health problems” and “all these repairs have taken their toll” on her health in a “very negative way”.
The resident emailed the landlord the following day, 20 January 2021 to include the following to her complaint:
1. a request for compensation for the injury she sustained due to the corner bead in the hallway.
The landlord provided its stage one response on 8 February 2021, this letter confirmed the customer service team dealt with complaints into “responsive repairs and gas service failures that have occurred over the previous 12 months”. It responded to the residents individual complaints as follows:
1. In relation to the plastering works, the landlord advised it had already responded to this issue in a previous complaint response dated 29 April 2019 therefore it would not revisit this issue. It advised any repairs needed to be reported direct to the repairs team.
2. The landlord advised it would not revisit the issue about the injury the resident claimed to have sustained by the “ply cover which was installed over the old fire escape door”. It said it could not see that the issue had been reported to the repairs team and to contact them direct.
3. A diagnostic surveyor attended a scheduled appointment on 9 December 2020. They inspected and concluded that there were no structural cracks to the building. It was noted that the hairline cracks to various areas of the inside of the property were due to “shrinkage in the plaster and this can be cut out and refilled”. The landlord advised these works had been referred to the TMO to be carried out and the handyperson would undertake the filling of the hairline cracks.
4. The landlord advised the resident to report the corner beading as a repair directly as the TMO did not have anyone to “make good” the beading.
5. The landlord advised installing floor sound proofing to be an improvement, therefore if the resident wished to install this, she would need to obtain authorisation from the landlord. The landlord advised it is not a repair and therefore outside the remit of the customer service team and repairs department.
6. It follows on to say the resident also requested that “the asbestos team”“remove the skirting boards and floor beads” and advised any repairs needed to be reported to the repairs team.
7. It advised the removal of an old fireplace was considered to be improvement works; was not a repair and as such, outside the remit of the customer service team and repairs department.
8. The landlord advised the request for the kitchen extractor to be moved had not been reported as a repair, therefore it advised the resident to report any repairs needed to the repairs team.
9. The landlord advised the issue around the bathroom not qualifying for renewal had already been responded to previously and would not be revisited.
10. The landlord advised that the bath and the toilet were newly fitted in June 2019 with the council’s standard fittings and that changing the existing bathroom suite to a new matching suite was considered to be improvement works and as such, outside the remit of the customer service team and repairs department.
11. In regard to the height of the bath the landlord advised it could not see a referral from an occupational therapist to carry out this work therefore it was considered to be improvement works; was not a repair and as such, outside the remit of the customer service team and repairs department.
12. The landlord advised it had no repairs recorded about blockages to the waste pipe in the kitchen therefore the request for a separate waste pipe was considered to be improvement works and as such, outside the remit of the customer service team and repairs department.
13. The landlord declined the request for a surveyor to attend the property as the previous request and repairs were over 12 months ago, therefore it would not investigate further.
The landlord concluded advising the complaint had not been upheld because there had been no service failures identified that were attributable to the repairs team or its contractors.
The resident emailed the repairs as directed by the landlord’s stage one response, on 9 February 2021. This included numerous plaster repairs, removal of “asbestos containing skirting boards” and the kitchen extractor obstructing the curtains. She also requested a surveyor to inspect and investigate the report of repair needs.
The repairs team responded via email on the same day and stated, “In the first instance this has been forwarded to your TMO office and copied in Surveying team to action”.
The landlord confirmed via email on 18 February 2021 to advise of an appointment for a surveyor had been booked for 23 March 2021. A subsequent email from the resident on 12 March 2021 showed this appointment as booked on 31 March 2021.
The resident emailed the landlord on 4 March 2021 and “requested and extension in time to respond” to the landlords letter as she said “it may be prudent to await” the outcome of the surveyor visit due on 31 March 2021.
A works order was raised on 13 March 2021 for a routine 20 day repair, The “planned start date” was recorded as 17 March 2021 and the works order was marked complete on 17 March 2021 the job notes state “attend to inspect” the following:
1. “Angle bead in hallway is sticking out and is a safety risk. Fit tape over bead as temporary measure. Bead needs to be chopped out & refitted so that it’s not proud & redecorated”.
2. “Gaps to plaster to right hand side of boiler need to be made good”.
3. “Cracks to plaster in living room where door blocked up needs to be cut out and replastered in living room. “
4. “Cracks above radiator in living room need to be cut out and made good”.
5. “Fan in kitchen is too close to the window and in the way of the curtain, causing damage to curtain”.
The landlord provided a response to the resident’s stage one review complaint on 19 March 2021. The letter stated in summary, that the complaint was about various repair issues, which the resident considered outstanding and addressed the below:
1. The landlord advised the surveyors visit due on 31 March 2021 had been cancelled as a senior diagnostic surveyor had confirmed that the issues were satisfactorily addressed in the stage one response and it had been clearly stated which items the landlord or TMO could assist with.
2. It went on to advise the resident that the TMO could assist with the cracks on the walls, the charge hand had been asked if the kitchen fan could be repositioned. It advised the resident if she had not heard about this in two weeks to contact repairs once again to see if they had had a response. It advised her to contact the targeted tenancy team about the removal of asbestos containing materials.
3. It confirmed an appointment scheduled for 13 March 2021 for a plumber to attend to the waste pipe issue in the kitchen but stated “It is not clear why this repair has been scheduled for a council plumber, as I understand plumbing repairs are the responsibility of the TMO. However, the appointment is planned and if there are any problems, the matter will be referred back to the TMO.”
The resident emailed the landlord on 22 March 2021, within this email she questioned the cracks and corner bead repairs being the TMO responsibility. She also expressed her disappointment in the recent surveyor visit which had been cancelled.
The landlord responded on this day via email confirming it considered the information contained in the review response to be clear and there was no reason to revisit the points addressed. It agreed however to forward on the comments about the inspection to the diagnostic surveying team.
Between 24 March 2021 and 15 April 2021, there were numerous contacts made between the resident and the landlord. One communication included the targeted tenancy team requesting the repairs team “arrange for removal of the flooring tiles and skirting boards in this property, and also the electric fire, which isn’t needed” as the resident was concerned about disturbing asbestos to lay new flooring.
The resident emailed the landlord on 15 April 2021 and chased up a response on 19 April 2021. Within this email she advised she had contacted “Islington Law Centre” to assist in escalating her complaint “due to her health problems and the complexity of her complaint”. She requested clarification from the landlord that it would remedy the repairs mentioned, these being:
1. “Removal of asbestos containing materials.
2. Repositioning of kitchen extractor.
3. Plastering, and repairing sticking out corner bead.
4. Bathroom”.
The landlord responded to the resident on 30 April 2021, within this email:
1. it confirmed that Islington Law Centre had been in touch,
2. reiterated it will not revisit the request to remove the redundant fireplace,
3. confirmed the repairs to the corner bead, plastering and kitchen extractor would be done after lockdown.
4. and asked the resident to clarify the issues about the bathroom so it could check what had been requested.
In an email to the landlord on 3 May 2021 the resident expressed a view it was “a good opportunity to go asbestos free”.
The landlord emailed the resident on 5 May 2021, to advise the team leader of diagnostic surveyors had said a second visit was not required. The initial survey had been reviewed and there were no structural issues with the property or block. The TMO had offered to carry out remedial works to the cracks in plaster and further repairs had been inspected by the charge hand of repairs team. It also advised a job had been cancelled to repair plasterwork.
On the 5 May 2021 the resident advised the charge hand from repairs advised that the landlord would take care of the plastering, repair the sticking out corner bead and reposition the kitchen extractor. The resident believed the repair was cancelled by the landlord without talking to anybody from the TMO or finding out more information. The resident stated the TMO had asked the landlord to do these repairs first as “it had no one capable to carry out the work”. The resident stated in this email the landlord’s actions were “highly confusing, time wasting, depressing, and emotionally draining”. She requested it reinstate the works order for plastering, repairing the corner bead and repositioning the kitchen extractor.
The resident received a response to her request for the asbestos to be removed on 11 May 2021. The landlord advised it was “not a service we would offer”. The email was sent from a housing officer who apologised and advised it was “not an area” that she would be able to be further involved in, as she “did not work in repairs or property services”. The resident responded and advised she did not know who did what, so was acting on advice received of who to contact.
A works order had a start date entered on 24 May 2021 to carry out repairs to the plaster cracks in the hallway, lounge, corner bead and to the side of the boiler in the kitchen. The works order also noted to relocate the kitchen extractor fan. Follow on works were raised on this day for a painter to attend to paint the lounge and hallway.
The landlord wrote to the resident on 27 May 2021 as the second review of her stage one complaint. It clarified its response to be further to the stage one response on 8 February 2021, the review response on 19 March 2021 and to the residents subsequent emails on 22 March 2021, 15 April 2021, 3 May 2021 and 5 May 2021. It stated it was not “standard practice to provide several further responses once the stage one complaint has been investigated”. However, in this instance, given the communication received, it considered it necessary to respond.
The landlord went on to confirm its previous responses to the residents emails of 22 March 2021 (2), 15 April 2021, the Islington law centres email dated 22 April 2021, 3 May 2021 and 5 May 2021. It summarised the following as items raised in subsequent emails and clarified its response as follows:
1. the repairs to the cracks in the paster were the responsibility of the TMO not the repairs team.
2. as per the stage one response, the removal of the fireplace was considered to be improvement works and it would not be revisited.
3. any asbestos issues or removals must be reported to the repairs team.
4. the kitchen extractor fan obstructing the kitchen curtain was not a repair issue and referred the resident to the TMO.
5. The waste pipe repair was attended to, completed on 22 March 2021 and no other service requests had been made since.
6. The bathroom was not a repair issue, it referred the resident to the access team to assess the bathroom. Following an assessment, any referral made would be forwarded to the aids and adaptations team for the specified works to be carried out.
To summarise, the landlord noted that there were no disrepair issues in the property. The landlord advised the removal of asbestos containing materials must be reported to the repairs team to make a service request. It also confirmed that the diagnostic surveying team were not required to assess decorations. It concluded its review letter advising the complaint had not been upheld as per the stage one response and that outcome still stood.
A works order details painting to the hallway and lounge was completed on 8 June 2022.
The resident emailed the landlord on 26 June 2021 indicating that a number of outstanding items remained which she wished to proceed to the Chief Executive stage of the complaints procedure. The resident clarified the following to be outstanding issues:
1. Plaster works to the right-hand side of the boiler.
2. Redundant fireplace
3. Kitchen extractor
The resident also stated she sought compensation for the loss of amenity that she had faced and continued to face in missing the bathroom refurbishment opportunity. She requested that the landlord refurbish the “old original sink and toilet” “to match the bathtub”, in recognition of its failure to inform her of the bathroom refurbishment. The resident noted the landlord’s position regarding the asbestos in the property, she advised however that she continued to be concerned that it could cause danger during the installation of new flooring.
The resident wrote to the landlord on 1 July 2021 outlining all the attempts she had made to get an answer about the request to remove the skirting and fireplace. It had taken up to June to get an answer that the landlord would not remove it.
The landlord wrote to the resident on 11 February 2022, as the final stage of its process. In this response the landlord clarified the resident’s complaint as:
1. The resident believed the landlord was responsible to carry out plastering repairs to the right-hand side of the boiler and to move the extractor fan in the kitchen.
2. It took a long time and many emails to find out the repairs service would not remove asbestos containing materials.
3. With reference to a redundant fireplace, the resident sought clarification of what constitutes an improvement and what is in the scope of a repair.
4. The resident sought compensation for the inconvenience and loss of amenity due to the landlord’s failure to complete repair works within a reasonable timeframe.
5. The resident sought compensation for loss of amenity for having lost out on a cyclical refurbishment opportunity would like the old bathroom sink and toilet refurbished to match the bathtub.
The landlord apologised for the delay in its response at the Chief Executive Stage of the complaints process. It advised it was unable to respond within corporate timescale due to an increase in escalated complaint requests and offered £75 in recognition of the delay.
The landlord went on to respond to the residents complaint as follows:
1. the cyclical improvement complaint was responded to in November 2019, following an enquiry from a councillor about several repairs. In this response the landlord confirmed the repairs service was not aware of the planned improvements when changes were made to the bathroom because the future works had not been publicised at the time.
2. The Ombudsman was unable to investigate this point because it was not raised as part of the original complaint and no further complaint was made until January 2021. The landlord advisedit followed Ombudsman’s guidelines, whereby complaints not raised within 12 months of the incident are considered out of time for investigation. Therefore, events relating to the 2019 cyclical improvements cannot be investigated.
3. The landlord confirmed for the same reason, any complaint made about the standard of plastering, or other repair work carried out in June 2019, was also out of time for investigation. It found no service failure and therefore no grounds to award compensation for any loss of amenity.
4. The TMO had agreed to repair hairline cracks to plasterwork in the living room. However, the resident had subsequently asked this work to be paused until the outcome of this complaint, as she had planned to redecorate once all the repairs were complete. The landlord confirmed the repair of hairline cracks to not be the responsibility of the repairs team therefore it found no service failure.
5. The landlord confirmed however, repair to the plaster was carried out and on 8 June 2021, the lounge and hallway were redecorated therefore all plastering repairs, within the remit of the landlord, were complete. The landlord acknowledged a service failure for these repairs due to conflicting information about the status of the repairs and the subsequent responsibility being given.It apologised for the confusion and lack of clarity. It acknowledged the delay in the work being completed, but advised it was not a service failure due to non urgent repairs being on hold during a period of lockdown.
6. The landlord confirmed the job to move the kitchen extractor had been overlooked and had asked the repairs team to action and expedite this repair. It found a service failure for this repair due to the resident being given inaccurate information about the status of the repair and the work had not yet been carried out.
7. The landlord confirmed it had removed all high-risk asbestos containing materials from its properties but it was policy to leave low content asbestos materials in place, unless damaged or degrading. It advised surveys to the resident’s property in June 2019, an inspection in March 2021 and photographic evidence showed no damage, or degradation to the fireplace, skirting boards, or flooring. Therefore, it had no obligation to remove the fixtures which contained asbestos. It did however find a service failure in the lack of clarity on this subject given to the resident.
8. It confirmed the residents personal injury claim to be outside the remit of the complaint investigation because the complaints “process does not compensate where recompense is by an insurance claim”.
The landlord concluded its final review by stating it had partly upheld the resident’s complaint because, from February 2021, the status of some repairs were unclear and the extractor fan repair remained outstanding. It apologised and in recognition of the time and trouble spent pursuing repairs and the complaint offered £250, in addition to the £75 for this delayed response.
The resident wrote to the council on 23 April 2022 and advised although she had accepted the offer of £325, she would still approach this service on the basis that a number of items remained unresolved, these included:
1. “Compensation for the personal injury suffered”, the resident had not received a response from the landlord’s insurance team.
2. The mismatchedbathroom and the missed opportunity regarding the planned cyclical improvement.
3. “The removal of the disused fireplace”.
4. “The delays relating to repositioning of the kitchen extractor fan and plastering around the boiler.”
5. “Compensation for stress and time wastage caused by the council due to conflicting and misleading communication.”

Events after the landlord’s internal complaints procedure

The resident submitted her complaint to this Service on 24 April 2022 the complaint was duly made on this day also, In an update to this service on 24 April 2022 the resident states the complaint is about:
1. The personal injury suffered “as a result of unsafe and unprofessional plastering around corner bead”,
2. “Lack of information and thereby a missed opportunity on a planned cyclical improvement to the bathroom, a mismatch sink (original from 1958) and toilet to the bath”,
3. “The removal of a disused fireplace,
4. delays in relation to the relocation of the kitchen extractor fan, and plastering around the boiler”,
5. “Conflicting, misleading, and time wasting communication by the council regarding removal of asbestos containing flooring tiles, skirting boards, disused fireplace, plastering work in the living room, and repairing unsafe corner bead in the hallway”.
6. The resident stated she had spent a lot of time and effort over the last few years raising and following up on the above issues because the landlord had refused to accept their responsibilities, delayed repairs and created confusion. She said she had yet to settle since moving in.
The resident would like:
1. The landlord to provide compensation “for the personal injury suffered” and “for causing stress and time wastage”.
2. The landlord to take immediate action to relocate the extractor fan and carry out the plastering around the boiler.
3. The landlord to take action to remove the disused fireplace and to expedite the matter relating to the bathroom fittings and her difficulties in getting into the bath.
In an update to this service on 10 August 2022, the landlord confirmed:
1. After a visit on 13 June 2022, it was found the kitchen extractor fan could not be relocated. As it cannot be moved the landlord would arrange a carpenter to help assist move the curtain pole so the curtain does not sit on top of the fan.
2. All plaster works were complete and decoration was completed on 8 June 2022.
3. The corner bead was repaired on 24 May 2021. The resident was offered a painting pack but she declined.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s response to the resident’s request to replace bathroom fixtures to match.

Section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985, details the landlord’s repair obligations as to “keep in repair and proper working order the installations in the dwelling-house for the supply of water, gas and electricity and for sanitation (including basins, sinks, baths and sanitary conveniences, but not other fixtures, fittings and appliances for making use of the supply of water, gas or electricity)”. The landlord, therefore had no obligation to change the bathroom fittings to match if they were in good repair; this would be cosmetic works outside of its repair obligation.
Although it had no obligation to change the bathroom fixtures to match, the landlord’s response to the resident’s request was not adequate. There was no clear commitment to the completion of works at the property, but the lack of clarity in its communication led to uncertainty by the resident. Although this gave no detriment, the continued action of the process prolonged the time and trouble expended by the resident. It did not fully explain why it would not carry out this request , detailing its repair obligations for example. It advised the request to be an improvement as the fixtures were “standard fittings”, without giving any detail about how the resident could progress through the improvement process or what this would entail . The landlord should have advised the resident to contact her local housing office and given the contact details for this office. This meant the resident remained unclear why this would not be done and continued to pursue this point through the complaints process.
The lack of clarity and definitive communication alongside the limited management of expectations, perpetuated further time and trouble for the resident. This constitutes a failing for the landlord’s response to the resident’s request to replace bathroom fixtures to match.

The landlord’s communication on cyclical bathroom improvements.

Similar to the above the landlord had no obligation to advise the resident of the upcoming cyclical programme, however it is best practise if major repairs are needed to check if a full refurbishment is due prior to commencing any major component replacements. Not only would completing works under a cyclical works programme be more cost efficient for the landlord, the resident would be better informed about the options there were for the maintenance of their property. This service has seen no evidence when the detailed programme was made available, therefore cannot substantiate the landlord’s claim that the repairs department did not have the information readily available at the time the repair was requested. However, this Service would expect the landlord to have this information readily available to be able to draw upon. In the particulars of this case, the resident would have appreciated to know the date the improvement works programme was published. The landlord missed an opportunity to learn from this complaint in this instance, as it simply declined to look into this further for the resident, rather than seek any improvements it could have made to its recording of cyclical improvements.
The lack of clarity and definitive communication alongside the limited management of expectations, perpetuated further time and trouble for the resident. This constitutes a failing in the landlord’s communication on cyclical bathroom improvements.

The landlord’s response to the residents request to remove a disused fireplace, skirting boards and floor beading which contain asbestos.

This service has previously determined a complaint concerning the information given to the resident regarding asbestos and a finding of no maladministration was found. Within this determination the obligations of removing asbestos were detailed as follows; “A landlord is not obligated to remove all asbestos in properties and nor would this be safe to do so. Unless disturbed, asbestos is safe and the landlord is only required to take action to remove this when it has been damaged, or to enable repairs to be safely completed. The landlord therefore was not required to remove the fireplace even though asbestos was present in the back boarding, as this was safe and not disturbed”.
In consideration to the landlord’s response to the residents request to remove such items as they contained asbestos, the landlord acted appropriately in reiterating the above advice as it had no obligation to remove such items.
The landlord’s housing repairs guide states in section 13.6, that tenants are responsible for any costs associated with asbestos testing, identification or removal works needed when carrying out improvement works themselves. As the resident wanted the landlord to remove possible asbestos containing materials before she carried out works herself, laying soundproofed flooring. The landlord should have advised the resident of her responsibility as set out in the guidance in the housing repairs guide and the correct process for requesting permission for improvements.
The lack of clarity and definitive communication alongside the limited management of expectations, perpetuated further time and trouble for the resident. This constitutes a failing for the landlord’s response to the residents request to remove a disused fireplace, skirting boards and floor beading which contained asbestos.

The landlords response to the residents request to relocate the kitchen extractor fan.

The resident first requested the kitchen extractor be moved in her initial complaint letter and the landlord advised in its stage one response dated 8 February 2021 that this was a service request and needed to be reported as a repair. The resident followed this advice and reported this as a repair the next day. The landlord’s response then became confusing as it referred the repair request to the TMO. It then included in its first review response that the charge hand had been asked if the fan can be relocated, it left the outcome of whether this would be done unanswered at this stage. It then advised in April 2021, it would be done after the lockdown due to Coronavirus, the resident then stated the charge hand in May, had advised the landlord would take care of it. At this point the resident stated the landlord was acting in a confusing manner which was “emotionally draining”. The landlord added further to this distress and confusion by stating in its second review response that the relocation of the fan was not a repair.
The landlord acknowledged in its final response letter dated 11 February 2022 that it was a repair and it had been overlooked. This was over 12 months from the residents first service request and it was only at this point that the landlord accepted this repair. Although it is noted that national lockdowns affected landlord’s repairs services the communication around this repair was misleading, non-accountable and not acceptable . The landlord acknowledged this communication to be a service failure an included an offer of redress as part of its final complaint response which will be acknowledged in the complaint handling section of this determination.
The lack of clarity and definitive communication alongside the limited management of expectations, perpetuated further time and trouble for the resident. This constitutes a failing for the landlord’s response to the residents request to relocate the kitchen extractor fan.

The landlord’s response to the residents reports of repair to plaster.

Section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985, details the landlords repair obligations as ”to keep in repair the structure and exterior of the dwelling-house”. It was therefore appropriate for the landlord to inspect the property with reference to any structural issue. Its communication following this however, was poor and lacked any form of accountability.
The resident references the TMO communicating with the landlord about the repairs to the plasterwork. The landlord also referenced an earlier complaint response which had responded to this point. It is reasonable to conclude that the issues around the repairs to plaster in the resident’s complaint were not a service request but had been raised previously. Therefore, it was inappropriate for the landlord to advise her to report the issue to the repairs team, this caused an avoidable amount of confusion and delay for the resident in pursuing this point.
There was a lot of back-and-forth communications around this issue, this Service has seen no evidence that either the landlord or TMO provided a definitive answer about the responsibility of plaster works to the resident. It was not until the landlord’s final complaint response in February 2022 that it gave clarity on who could assist with the works. Although the landlord confirmed to this service in August 2022 the plaster works were completed in the lounge and hallway in May 2021 and decoration in June 2021, this was not clarified in its complaint response. Further plaster and decoration works were completed in the kitchen in June 2022.
The lack of clarity and definitive communication alongside the limited management of expectations, perpetuated further time and trouble for the resident. This constitutes a failing for the landlords response to the residents reports of repair to plaster.

The landlord’s complaint handling.

Although the residents personal injury claim was outside of the landlords complaint investigation and is outside the scope of this investigation, this Service would still expect the landlord to show it acted on the requests made by the resident. The landlord appropriately referred the resident to its insurance team but then failed to advocate for her when she had not heard from them for a considerable amount of time. When dealing with the residents complaint the landlord should have contacted the insurance team to chase up a response on behalf of the resident, demonstrating it was seeking resolution.
The resident initially asked for a complaint to be raised on 19 January 2021. The landlord issued its stage one complaint response on 8 February 2021, which was inline with its policy timescale for complaint responses at this stage. However, the contents of its stage one response had an inadequate focus on resolution. The landlord failed to signpost the resident to the correct procedure and department to progress improvement works and rather just pointed out it was outside the repairs team remit. Although the complaint was being overseen by a department responsible for repairs complaints, this service would expect full answers and advice to be given through a complaints process, showing that a landlord fully reviews the issues raised and offers a full response to the resident. The landlord did not demonstrate it was adequately focussed on the resolution of the complaint or in line with the Dispute Resolution Principles, indicating it was more focused on responding in time not in full.
The resident stated, in an email on 4 March 2021, it “would be prudent to await the surveyors visit and report before responding further” to the stage one complaint and “requested an extension in time to respond” to the landlords stage one letter. This service has seen no evidence this was acknowledged or considered. The landlord issued its stage one review response on 19 March 2021 so it is reasonable to conclude it accepted this as an escalation request. The reason for not accepting the residents request for more time to respond is not clear however, the resident hadn’t actually requested it be escalated as the impending inspection would have quite possibly resolved some of the issues she was complaining about.
Whilst it is reasonable for the landlord to seek to minimise any unnecessary escalation to Chief Executive level and look to resolve a complaint at the earliest opportunity, it must ensure that in doing so its process does not unnecessarily confuse or protract matters for the resident. In this case, the landlord provided a further review response on 27 May 2021, rather than escalate the complaint to the next stage of the process which it had advised in its previous response.
The resident asked for her complaint to be escalated on 26 June 2021 and the landlord issued its final response on 11 February 2022 which was significantly outside of its timescale by 202 calendar days. There is no evidence to suggest that the resident was adequately informed of any delay in advance and needed to spend time and trouble pursuing her concerns which is likely to have caused inconvenience. This service finds that this delay combined with an already lengthy complaints process and confusing communications to be unreasonable, causing unnecessary time and trouble for the resident.
The landlord acknowledged, in its final response to the resident that it had delayed in providing its final response and offered £75 compensation for this. Its compensation guidance stated £25 for each month of delay should be considered; therefore, this service does not see this as reasonable redress and a further amount is ordered below.
The landlord apologised and in recognition of the time and trouble spent pursuing repairs and the complaint offered £250, which was inline with its compensation guidance at the time in offering between £100-£300 for time and effort.
The Ombudsman’s remedies guidance provides for compensation awards of £250 to £700 for “failure over a considerable period of time to act in accordance with policy” and “significant failures to follow complaint procedure”. Therefore, the landlord should pay the resident an additional amount for its excessive delay in providing its final stage complaint response, to recognise its failure to act in accordance with its policy.
The landlord also failed to acknowledge in any of its communications with the resident the impact pursuing her complaint had had on her. She advised of health problems in her initial complaint and further detailed the emotionally draining effect trying to resolve her issues was having on her. It is not acceptable for the landlord to totally disregard such statements and only offer an apology for the time and trouble in pursuing matters. Whilst complaint procedures do not assess injury to health, they should be used to provide redress for distress and inconvenience which arise from any service failures. However, the landlord did not award any compensation on this basis, therefore an order will be made in this respect to recognise the distress and inconvenience experienced.
In conclusion and considering all factors, this Service deems the failings above to constitute severe maladministration by the landlord in handling of the residents complaint.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure by the landlord in its response to the resident’s request to replace bathroom fixtures to match.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure by the landlord in its communication on cyclical bathroom improvements.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure by the landlord in its response to the resident’s request to remove a disused fireplace, skirting boards and floor beading which contained asbestos.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure by the landlord in its response to the resident’s request to relocate the kitchen extractor fan.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure by the landlord in its response to the resident’s reports of repair to plaster.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was severe maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s complaint.

Reasons

The landlord was under no obligation to replace the bathroom fixtures to match as they were not in a state of repair. The lack of clarity and definitive communication, alongside the limited management of expectations, perpetuated further time and trouble for the resident.
The landlord was under no obligation to advise the resident of upcoming cyclical bathroom improvements and furthermore it advised the repairs department was not aware at the time of the reported repair. It fulfilled its obligation to repair the bathroom fixtures by replacing them once it was on notice, but the lack of clarity and definitive communication, alongside the limited management of expectations, perpetuated further time and trouble for the resident.
Although the landlord was under no obligation to remove a disused fireplace, skirting boards and floor beading which contained asbestos, it failed to adequately explain to the resident when advising this was not a repair but an improvement, what making an improvement request would entail. This lack of clarity and definitive communication, alongside the limited management of expectations, perpetuated further time and trouble for the resident.
The landlord acknowledged its service failure in the time taken to raise a repair to relocate the kitchen extractor fan, which subsequently could not be relocated. The lack of clarity and definitive communication, alongside the limited management of expectations, perpetuated further time and trouble for the resident.
The landlord’s communication around the repair to plaster work was confusing, the resident did not receive a definitive answer until the final complaint response. This lack of clarity and definitive communication alongside the limited management of expectations, perpetuated further time and trouble for the resident.
In respect of the landlord’s complaint handling, the inadequacy of its early stages of the complaint process caused the resident significant time and trouble pursuing the matter through a multi-stage process. The landlord did not evidence an adequate investigative approach or provide definitive robust answers and acknowledgement of its own failings until its final complaint response, which was significantly delayed. At each of the early stages there was an inadequate focus on resolution and a failure to signpost to the correct department or process. The landlord gave no reason for not accepting the residents request to defer her response to the stage one complaint letter until after an arranged inspection. It subsequently provided a review response and delivered the message the inspection had been cancelled within its response. Its final offer of compensation remained inadequate in the circumstance of the case particularly given its acknowledgement of its failures at this point. Overall the complaint process lacked empathy for the adverse impact and distress its action had caused to the resident. In total the resident’s complaint took over 13 months from start to finish. This was extremely poor.
Additionally, the policy at the time, was not compliant with the Ombudsman Complaint Handling Code (the Code). The Code states that a landlord should only have a two stage procedure in place to ensure that the process is not “unduly long”. This protracted complaint procedure caused the resident further time and trouble in pursuing the complaint.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

Within the next four weeks, the landlord is ordered to:
1. Arrange for a senior member of staff to send a written apology for the failures identified in this report.
2. Pay the resident £250 for the five service failure determinations identified in this report.
3. Pay the resident £575 for the distress, frustration, time and trouble caused by its poor management of the residents complaint.
4. This amount replaces the landlord’s previous offer of £325 for compensation related to this complaint. If the landlord has already paid the resident this amount, this should be deducted from the amount ordered and the landlord should pay the resident the remaining £500.
Within 6 weeks of the date of this report the landlord must initiate and complete a review of this case, identifying learning opportunities and produce an improvement plan that must be shared with this Service outlining at minimum its review findings in respect of:
1. Its intention to ensure that complaint procedures are followed and residents are provided with an estimated timescale for a response where there are likely to be delays. This should include focus on the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code.
2. Its intention to ensure it works cohesively with its TMOs to provide a consistent service for its residents in respect of repair responsibilities and complaint management.
Within 12 weeks of the date of this report the landlord must bring into operation the improvements identified in its review.