London Borough of Barking and Dagenham (202212904)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202212904

London Borough of Barking and Dagenham

8 October 2024


Our approach

The Housing Ombudsman’s approach to investigating and determining complaints is to decide what is fair in all the circumstances of the case. This is set out in the Housing Act 1996 and the Housing Ombudsman Scheme (the Scheme). The Ombudsman considers the evidence and looks to see if there has been any ‘maladministration’, for example whether the landlord has failed to keep to the law, followed proper procedure, followed good practice or behaved in a reasonable and competent manner.

Both the resident and the landlord have submitted information to the Ombudsman, and this has been carefully considered. Their accounts of what has happened are summarised below. This report is not an exhaustive description of all the events that have occurred in relation to this case, but an outline of the key issues as a background to the investigation’s findings.

The complaint

  1. The complaint is about the landlord’s:
    1. response to the resident’s reports of a leak,
    2. handling of the resident’s complaint.

Background

  1. The resident was an assured tenant of the landlord. His tenancy began in 2019 and ended in 2023. The landlord is a local authority. The property is a 1-bedroom apartment. In the landlord’s internal correspondence, it had accepted responsibility for the maintenance of the washing machine. Although, there is no specific mention to this within the lease. We have investigated on the basis the landlord is responsible for any damage or malfunction for the washing machine and damage caused. This is due to the landlord not providing any information to the contrary. 
  2. On 1 August 2022, the resident reported to the landlord that his washing machine was leaking when in use. The evidence provided by the landlord shows a new washing machine was fitted. The landlord recorded the job as completed on 8 September 2022.
  3. On 14 September 2022, the resident complained to the landlord. He said there had been a leak from the new washing machine. The resident said following the leak, he fell and hurt himself when he was in the kitchen. The resident said he had been staying with friends and was unhappy he had to pay rent on the property during this time. The resident contacted this Service on 15 September 2022. He said he had slipped and the carpet at the property had been ruined.
  4. The landlord replied to the resident on 30 September 2022 at stage 1 of its internal complaints process. It said it understood the washing machine had been fixed at the time of its complaint response. The landlord did not uphold his complaint. Its records show it logged a follow up job to renew the living room carpet.
  5. On 29 September 2022 the resident escalated his complaint. He said he was ‘extremely dissatisfied’ with the landlord’s lack of communication. The resident said his health was affected by the smell from the carpet and at times he stayed away from the property due to it.
  6. The landlord replied at stage 2 of its internal complaints process on 23 June 2023, around 9 months later. The landlord said it completed a carpet clean in February 2023. It said there had been unreasonable delays in fixing the problem and upheld the resident’s complaint. The landlord offered £200 compensation for the delays and inconvenience caused.
  7. On 11 July 2023, the resident told this Service he was unhappy with the amount of compensation offered. He said he did not think it reflected the time he had spent trying to resolve the issue. The resident said he would like a rebate of half the rent that was paid over the 5 months. This is the time he waited for the landlord to clean the carpet. The landlord said this would amount to £1424.36 and it felt this was disproportionately high.
  8. On 19 February 2024, the resident agreed to mediation between himself and the landlord. The landlord offered to raise the compensation amount to £300. The resident declined this offer and escalated his complaint to the Ombudsman.

Assessment and findings

Scope of Investigation

  1. The resident has told this Service the situation has impacted his health. It is recognised the situation was distressing for the resident. Where the Ombudsman finds failure on a landlord’s part, we can consider the resulting distress and inconvenience. Unlike a court, we cannot establish liability or award damages. This means we are unable to determine if the landlord was responsible for any health impacts or personal injury. 

The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of a leak

  1. The parties agree the leak occurred in September 2022 and the cleaning was not completed until 5 months later. The landlord’s repairs policy says that non-urgent repairs will be completed within 20 working days. This represents a delay of around 4 months for the resident. This was an inappropriate breach of the landlord’s repairs policy.
  2. The evidence shows in the landlord’s complaint response it detailed its failings in dealing with the repair. The landlord has admitted to its errors and the delays in handling the repair to the resident’s carpet. This is in line with the resident’s evidence and is not disputed.
  3. There was around a 4-month delay for the resident to have the property’s carpet cleaned. This delay caused distress and inconvenience to the resident.
  4. The landlord has admitted its failings in this case. The Ombudsman’s role is to consider whether the redress offered put things right and resolved the resident’s complaint satisfactorily in the circumstances. To do this we considered the Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles, be fair, put things right and learn from outcomes.
  5. The landlord’s offer of £200 compensation is equivalent to £50 per month for the 4-month delay in cleaning the carpet. Given the level of distress and inconvenience caused to the resident this amount of compensation does not fully put right the landlord’s failings. A more appropriate amount is £300, which is equivalent to £75 per month. This amount reflects the impact on the resident in that at times he felt he needed to stay away from the property due to the damage. This is the same amount offered by the landlord in mediation to put things right. This amount of compensation is in line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance.
  6. The landlord recognised what it did wrong and took steps to put things right with an offer of compensation. Had this not been offered the Ombudsman would have made a finding of maladministration. Instead, the determination is for a service failure in light of the compensation initially awarded being unsuitable.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint

  1. The resident raised his complaint on 14 September 2022. He told the landlord that he had fallen in the kitchen and injured himself. The resident said he needed the washing machine, and the carpet dealt with as a matter of urgency. He said the carpet was ‘extremely wet’ and had started to smell.
  2. On 29 September 2022 the resident emailed the landlord. He said the smell from the carpet was affecting his sinus and he was unable to stay at the flat.
  3. The landlord responded at stage 1 of its internal complaints process on 30 September 2022. It did not acknowledge the resident’s reported injuries or the effect the leak had on his health. The landlord also did not respond to his request to repair the carpet and allow safe access to the kitchen.
  4. Paragraph 5.6 of the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code 2022 (the Code) states a landlord must address all issues raised by a resident in a complaint. The landlord failed to acknowledge in its response that the resident had reported injuries and the resulting negative effects on his health. The landlord’s failure to respond directly to the resident’s complaint point was inappropriate. The failure will have compounded the resident’s distress and damaged his confidence in the landlord’s handling of his complaint.
  5. When the resident reported injuries to the landlord, the Ombudsman would expect the landlord to act on this. The landlord could have signposted the resident to make a claim through its insurer. It could have investigated using its internal complaints procedure or inform the resident that to seek damages or compensation through an alternative legal means. In this case, there was no evidence the landlord told the resident how to raise a claim with its insurers, or that it considered the resident’s injury a substantive complaint point. This was a serious procedural failure on the landlord’s part. The situation was unfair and unreasonable. The landlord has not addressed the matter to date. 
  6. On 26 October 2022 the resident requested to escalate his complaint. He told the landlord he continued to be affected by the smell in the property and this was an inconvenience to him. He asked clearly for his complaint to be taken to stage 2. Paragraph 5.10 of the Code states a landlord must escalate a complaint to stage 2 at the request of a resident, if it has completed stage 1. The landlord did not respond or act on the resident’s request. This was inappropriate.
  7. The resident contacted this Service on 12 December 2022 and asked for our assistance. We wrote to the landlord on 23 March 2023 and asked it to progress the case by 15 April 2023. The landlord did not respond to the request and the Ombudsman issued a complaint handling failure order (CHFO) to the landlord on 23 June 2023.
  8. The landlord replied to the resident at stage 2 of its internal complaints process on the same day the CHFO was issued. The landlord’s complaints policy says that a response at stage 2 will be given within 30 working days. This was a delay of around 7 months. The failing to comply with its policy was inappropriate. It was a significant delay beyond the policy time and the landlord failed to explain the delay. This was unreasonable.
  9. In its stage 2 response the landlord offered the resident £200 compensation. This was for the inconvenience caused by the leak and smell and the delay in dealing with the matter. It upheld the resident’s complaint. However it did not recognise the delay in responding to the escalation request or its stage 2 response.
  10. In summary, the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint was delayed and it failed to respond to key complaint points. It did not offer any compensation to the resident for the failings in its complaint handling. This was inappropriate and caused distress to the resident. These failures amount to maladministration and an order for compensation to reflect the inconvenience and delay to resolution for the resident will be made.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was a service failure in the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of a leak.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in relation to the landlord’s complaint handling.

Orders

  1. Within 4 weeks of the date of the report the landlord should apologise in writing to the resident for the failings outlined above.
  2. Within 4 weeks of the date of this report the landlord should pay the resident £450 compensation. It is free to deduct the £200 compensation previously offered, if this has been paid to the resident. This comprises of:
    1. £300 for the distress and inconvenience caused by the delay in repairing the carpet,
    2. £150 for the landlord’s complaint handling failure.
  3. Within 4 weeks the landlord should take steps to resolve the issue around personal injury. It should use appropriate means with the resident and inform this Service how it did so. Given the passage of time the landlord should make this process as easy to navigate as possible.
  4. The landlord should reply to this Service with evidence of compliance on the above orders within 4 weeks.