London Borough of Barking and Dagenham (202318303)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202318303

London Borough of Barking and Dagenham

11 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

The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s:
1. Request for the exterior of the block to be painted.
2. Reports concerning the volume of the intercom.
3. Request for hooks to be fitted to the external communal doors.
4. Request for an alternative location of a kitchen extractor fan.
5. Associated formal complaint.

Background

The resident is the secure tenant of a 2-bedroom ground floor flat, owned by the landlord, where he resides with his family. The landlord had no recorded vulnerabilities for the resident but became aware of medical concerns during the complaint.
The resident raised a formal complaint to the landlord on 27 July 2023. He said that the external block condition required attention, the paint was peeling, and it looked run down. He said that his new intercom was too quiet, he could not hear it from his living room, despite the volume being at its maximum. He also reported that the old communal doors had catches on to hold them open. They now opened outwards, which made it difficult to get into the block when carrying shopping, or for people in wheelchairs.
The landlord responded at stage 1 of its complaints process on 13 September 2023. It said that it was committed to investing in its housing stock and improving the quality of living conditions of residents. It had invested significant financial resources during the recent replacement of entrance doors, internal decoration, and addition of emergency lighting. It would consider further work, including external decoration, with all other priorities identified across its housing stock. It said that the specification of the new doors had not included hooks. However, following his concerns, it had inspected the site and would arrange to install new hooks.
The resident asked the landlord to escalate his complaint the same day, repeating the same concerns. He also raised 3 new issues relating to an extractor fan for his kitchen, that he had damp and mould in his home, and that it had failed to assist him to move to a larger property.
The landlord responded at stage 2 of its complaints process on 9 January 2024 and apologised for the delay in responding. Its response included as follows:
1. It explained that having an extractor fan fitted in the kitchen window would assist in reducing the humidity in the room. He had disputed the placement of the fan due to concerns about safety and fear that someone could break into his home. It understood his concerns, however, it had considered alternative locations but found no viable option.
2. It had made a referral to its sensory team with regard to his difficulty in hearing the intercom.
3. It said it consulted its officers regarding installing the hooks and would address the matter as soon as possible.
The resident remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s response and brought his complaint to this Service. He wanted it to provide an alternative location for the extractor fan, to install the hooks, provide an update about external painting, and relocate the intercom.

Assessment and findings

In reaching a decision about the resident’s complaint we consider whether the landlord has kept to the law, followed proper procedure and good practice, and acted in a reasonable way. Our duty is to determine complaints by reference to what is, in this Service’s opinion, fair in all the circumstances.

Scope of investigation

In the resident’s escalation request he raised 3 further issues which did not form part of his original complaint. He raised concerns that the landlord had failed to support him to move to a 3-bedroom home, taking into account his son’s medical needs. The landlord’s allocation process does not fall within the remit of this Service and is a matter for consideration by the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman (LGSCO). We have, therefore, not considered this matter as part of this investigation.
Our position is in accordance with paragraph 42.f. of the Scheme which says 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.
The resident also raised concerns about damp and mould in his home. While we appreciate this would be distressing for the resident, he raised the issues in his escalation request following the landlord’s stage 1 response. It did not respond to the damp and mould reports in its stage 2 response and has, therefore, not completed its complaints process. We have, therefore, not considered this matter as part of this investigation. He may wish to consider raising a new complaint with the landlord in the first instance.
Our position is in accordance with paragraph 42.a. of the Scheme which says that the Ombudsman may not consider complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, are made prior to having exhausted a members complaints procedure.
The resident also raised concerns about the location of a kitchen extractor fan. As the landlord has responded to this matter in its stage 2 response, we have considered this matter as part of this investigation.
The resident advised that that the delay in resolving the intercom issue had caused him health concerns including depression, anxiety and emotional distress. This Service can consider any inconvenience or distress caused, as a result of any service failure by the landlord. However, it is beyond the expertise of this Service to establish legal liability or whether a landlord’s actions or lack of action had a detrimental impact on a resident’s health, nor can it calculate or award damages. Ultimately this would be a matter for the courts.

Request for the exterior of the block to be painted

Under section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 the landlord is responsible to keep the structure and exterior of the property in good order.
The landlord did not provide a copy of its repairs and maintenance policy or any information relating to its process for scheme improvements. However, it is industry standard practice for landlords to have a planned programme of work with regard to external decoration and refurbishment of its housing stock. A planned maintenance programme allows landlords to plan for future improvements and upgrades, such as external decoration, replacement kitchens, bathrooms, windows and doors. It enables landlords to manage budgets and costs for each financial year across its housing stock. Replacement of such items, including external decoration, fall outside of the landlord’s day to day repairs process.
In his complaint, the resident said that paint was peeling and dirty and that the exterior of the block looked run down. He questioned why the landlord would undertake improvement work if it were not going to tidy up the front and rear of the block with a “lick of paint”. He said it was not helping him or others who wanted to move from the area.
In the landlord’s stage 1 response it said that it had invested in the block and would consider further work, including external decoration, and inform residents in advance of any programmed work.
The landlord’s response was appropriate and explained its position in relation to further work. It is reasonable for landlords to programme work to its housing stock over a period of years, to manage its budgets and costs, and ensure that it is replacing elements by age and priority. Its programme of work would also include a schedule for external decoration.
The resident responded to the landlord the same day stating that the paintwork around the doors outside still required painting. He said that he was not concerned with other blocks, just his own.
The landlord responded on 14 September 2023, stating that its officers had added the block to a future painting programme. Its complaints procedure had no jurisdiction over how budgets were allocated or spent. While it appreciated that he wanted to see the work undertaken, its refusal to carry out the work did not amount to a service failure. For this reason, his complaint was not suitable for review at stage 2 of its complaints process.
The landlord could have considered responding at stage 2 of its complaints process to confirm its position. However, its response was appropriate and explained that it had added the resident’s block to its painting programme. It demonstrated its commitment to improving its stock through the work it had already undertaken to the doors, internal decoration and emergency lighting.
In the landlord’s explanation to this Service, it said that it did not currently have dates for the work, and this would be determined when funding became available.
While we appreciate that the external look of the building may have been distressing for the resident, this was cosmetic and there was no evidence to suggest that there were any building faults. We, therefore, find no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for the exterior of the block to be painted.

Reports concerning the volume of the intercom

The landlord installed a new intercom system in 2022 and installed a new handset in the resident’s home on 17 October 2022.
The resident raised his complaint 9 months after the installation of the intercom. He stated that the intercom was too quiet despite the engineer setting it to the maximum volume. He wanted it to rewire the intercom and move it to a central location in his home.
The landlord’s records of 28 July 2023 referred to there being no problem with the new intercom. Its electrical compliance team had passed the new door entry system, and it was satisfied with the project and feedback from residents.
On 9 August 2023, the resident wrote to the landlord stating that someone was supposed to visit him at home to assess the intercom and his hearing. He wrote further, on 14 August 2023, stating that the matter was unresolved until the relocation of the intercom. He said that the buzzer was near the front door and due to the long hallways, it could not be heard when using the TV or washing machine. The landlord’s records of the same date referred to a telephone call to arrange for an occupational therapist referral.
Following a visit to the resident’s home on 23 August 2023, the landlord wrote to confirm that it found no defects with the intercom system. The volume had been set to the maximum level, the same as the previous handset. However, it acknowledged his assertion that he had a hearing impairment and agreed to complete a referral to occupational therapy. It asked him to provide evidence of his hearing impairment from a GP or other appropriate professional. It would consider what support could be put in place, or alterations made, following contact from its officer. It was unable to confirm how long the process would take, but his case would remain open until a conclusion was reached.
The landlord’s stage 1 response failed to address the resident’s concerns in relation to the intercom system, which he had clearly raised in his complaint.
On 23 October 2023, the resident wrote to the landlord stating that no one had come back to him despite providing his medical information. The evidence shows that the resident chased the landlord for a response on 4 and 9 January 2024.
The landlord’s records of 4 January 2024 noted that the referral had been received on 13 November 2023 and was on the waiting list. The record also said that if the resident wanted an assessment by the sensory team, it could help with things such as a TV listener, personal listener, or hearing aid management. It said that the information, provided by the resident, was insufficient for registration purposes and did not confirm that he had a hearing loss. It said it would contact him for a sensory needs assessment.
In its stage 2 response, the landlord confirmed that it had made a referral to its sensory team for an assessment. Its intention was to ascertain if any support could be put in place. The sensory team would be in contact to discuss possible solutions.
The landlord’s response demonstrated that it had considered the resident’s concerns. It had visited him at home to assess the situation, checked the intercom was functioning appropriately and ensured it was set to the maximum volume. It took on board his reports, that he had a 20% hearing loss, and referred the matter to its occupational therapy and sensory needs team.
In the landlord’s explanation to this Service, it said its sensory team would offer further advice and guidance following the assessment. It was waiting for information from the sensory team. It was not considering an alternative option as the volume of the intercom was adequate. However, it would consider reasonable adjustments if the sensory team deemed it necessary.
While we appreciate that the situation would have been frustrating for the resident. The landlord had replaced its door entry system and intercom like for like. It ensured that the handset was set to the same volume as the previous handset. While it had no obligation to move the intercom from its original location, it demonstrated that it had taken reasonable steps in making a referral to its occupational therapy team. It also said it would consider reasonable adjustments following the assessment.
It is not known whether the assessment has taken place, and while we appreciate this would have been frustrating for the resident, it is likely that the landlord’s occupational therapy waiting list would be outside of its control. It is reasonable for the landlord to wait for a professional opinion before making any alterations. We, therefore, find no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports concerning the volume of the intercom.

Request for hooks to be fitted to the external communal doors

In the resident’s complaint he said that the old entrance doors had hooks to prop open the doors. The new doors did not have hooks and opened outwards. This made it difficult to get into the building with shopping, for elderly people, or people in wheelchairs.
The landlord’s records of August 2023 referred to the resident’s request and that it would not be considered as communal entrance doors should remain closed. It had no wheelchair users in the block, and it would not place a wheelchair user in the block as there was no lift. In the event that a resident’s circumstances changed, it would consider other housing options. The doors were heavy as they were fire doors and installing catches would mean that the doors would not be compliant with fire regulations.
However, further records of 5 September 2023 state the opposite of the above. It needed to install new hooks or catches to assist residents. It would visit the site and consider an appropriate method to secure the doors open whilst people were entering or leaving. It would obtain a quotation and seek approval for expenditure.
In its stage 1 response the landlord said that hooks were not included in its specification for the new doors. It had inspected the site and would arrange for new door hooks to be fitted.
The resident asked to escalate his complaint the same day stating that the hooks had not been fitted.
The landlord responded to the resident on 14 September 2023, confirming that it had written the previous day explaining that it would fit hooks. It had allocated the work to its contractor to complete by the end of November 2023. It said that his request to escalate his complaint was premature.
The resident chased the landlord on 23 October and 19 December 2023, stating that it had still not fitted the hooks.
The landlord’s records of 2 January 2024 referred to having no obligation to fit the hooks but trying to arrange the work. It was a low priority due to financial resources.
In its stage 2 response the landlord said that it understood that he had experienced difficulty with the weight of the new doors. It had liaised with officers and would address the matter as soon as possible. Its contractor had been instructed and it would monitor the situation.
In the landlord’s explanation to this Service, it said that while it had offered to install the hooks, it had to consider the safety of the block. By replacing the hook system, it could impact the security, allowing unauthorised entry and may place additional pressure on the locking mechanism. It would take an overview from its landlord services team to consider the possibility but was unable to confirm if this would proceed.
While we appreciate the landlord’s position in relation to the security of the block, and its need to consider fire regulations, it failed to manage the resident’s expectations in its responses. It said that the work would be completed by the end of November 2023 in its stage 1 response. It further stated in its stage 2 response that it would get the work done as soon as possible. We, therefore, find service failure in the landlord’s response to the resident’s request for hooks to be fitted to the external communal doors.

Request for an alternative location of a kitchen extractor fan

The resident did not initially raise the issue of the kitchen fan in his original complaint, however, reported this in his escalation request.
The landlord’s repairs records show the following:
1. Records of 5 January 2023 referred to its contractors attempting to fit an extractor fan in the kitchen window. The resident had insisted that it went in the wall. Previous contractors had attempted to fit it, but the resident was refusing to allow it to be installed in the window.
2. There were further attempts made in February 2023 to install the extractor fan. It had explained that the glass would not be an openable window. It had attempted to drill through the wall, but it was too thick.
3. In March 2023 the resident had chased the installation of the fan. It had been going back and forth about the location. Records again referred to the resident not allowing the fan to be installed in the window.
The landlord responded to the resident’s escalation request on 14 September 2023. It said that its records showed that operatives had attended to complete the work. This was to cure the damp and mould. Its notes confirmed that he was reluctant to proceed because of the draught this would create. It had advised him that no other suitable location existed. It had arranged a further inspection, and the position of the fan would be revisited. If any alternative option were found, its officers would raise orders for the necessary work.
The landlord’s records of 26 October 2023 concluded that there was no alternative location for the extractor fan. It arranged for its supervisor to visit to provide a second opinion. However, if the window fan were the only option, it would need to communicate back to its team to decide how to proceed.
The landlord wrote to the resident on 20 December 2023, stating that the installation of the extractor fan in the kitchen window was a necessary action as part of the maintenance and improvement of his property. It had previously communicated the need for the fan, however, it appeared that there had been difficulties in arranging the placement of the fan to minimise mould. It asked for his assistance in allowing the installation and said it was crucial to comply with the terms and conditions of his tenancy agreement. It asked him to confirm his availability.
The resident responded the following day stating that the landlord could not install a fan through the window. He lived on the ground floor and was concerned about security.
In the landlord’s stage 2 response it said it had identified the kitchen window as a suitable placement for the fan. It would assist in reducing humidity which could lead to the occurrence of damp and mould. Its response also includes as follows:
1. It understood that he had disputed the placement of the fan for safety reasons and fear it could lead to someone breaking into his home. It understood his concerns, but its review suggested that it was reasonable for the fan to be placed in the window. There was no evidence to suggest that this increased the risk to security.
2. It outlined his tenancy conditions stating that he must allow access into his home to inspect, service, repair, improve and carry out maintenance work to the property.
3. The placement of the fan was essential to reduce the risk or the re-occurrence of damp and mould which was a cause for concern for his family.
4. It had considered alternative locations and there was no other reasonable place it could be utilised. In the interest of honesty, it would refer the matter to a legal route for breaking of tenancy conditions.
The landlord’s response appropriately outlined its position with regard to the extractor fan. It had attempted on multiple occasions to fit the extractor fan and had considered alternative options such as drilling through the wall. In order for the landlord to resolve the kitchen humidity level it needed to install the fan. It also outlined its position in relation to the tenancy agreement and allowing access to resolve the matter.
In the landlord’s explanation to this Service, it said that it had installed window fans in other properties and blocks. It had received no reports of unauthorised access, or that it made properties less secure. When initially deciding on the location of the fan, it considered alternative locations, but due to steel beams in the building structure it was not a viable option.
While we appreciate the resident’s concerns about the security of his home, the landlord demonstrated that it had attempted to fit the fan and resolve the issue. We, therefore, find no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for an alternative location of a kitchen extractor fan.

Associated formal complaint.

The landlord operates a 2-stage complaints process. Stage 1 complaints are responded to within 10 working days and stage 2 complaints within 30 working days.
On 8 February 2024, the Ombudsman issued the statutory Complaint Handling Code. This Code sets out the standards landlords must meet when handling complaints in both policy and practice. The statutory Code applies from 1 April 2024. The Ombudsman has a duty to monitor compliance with the Code. We will assess landlords using our Compliance Framework and take action where there is evidence that the requirements set out in the Code are not being met.
In this investigation, we found failures in the landlord’s complaint handling policy. Its policy states that it will respond at stage 2 of its complaints process within 30 days. In order to be compliant this should be 20 working days. We have therefore referred this to our team responsible for monitoring compliance with the Code.
The landlord’s stage 1 response failed to address the resident’s concerns in relation to the intercom system, which he had clearly raised in his complaint. Paragraph 6.7 of the complaint handling code states that landlords must address all points raised in the complaint definition and provide clear reasons for any decisions, referencing the relevant policy, law and good practice where appropriate. Its response was, therefore, not compliant with the code.
It should also be noted that section 6.8 of the complaint handling code states that where residents raise additional complaints during the investigation, these must be incorporated into the stage 1 response if they are related, and the stage 1 response has not been issued. Where the stage 1 response has been issued, the new issues are unrelated to the issues already being investigated or it would unreasonably delay the response, the new issues must be logged as a new complaint.
While we appreciate that the landlord attempted to provide a full response, it should have raised the extractor fan as a new complaint as it was unrelated to his original complaint points. It also failed to acknowledge his reports of damp and mould and whether it had raised this as a new complaint.
The resident raised his complaint on 27 July 2023. The landlord responded at stage 1 of its complaints process on 13 September 2023, 34 working days later, and 24 working days later than its complaints policy timescale.
The resident asked to escalate his complaint on 13 September 2023. The landlord responded on 9 January 2024, 81 working days later and, 51 working days later than its complaint policy timescale.
While the landlord apologised for its late complaint responses, it failed to demonstrate any learning from the complaint or say how it would prevent failures in the future. It also failed to offer any recompense for its late responses. We, therefore, find service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s associated formal complaint.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was no maladministration in relation to the landlord’s handling of the resident’s:
1. Request for the exterior of the block to be painted.
2. Reports concerning the volume of the intercom.
3. Request for an alternative location of a kitchen extractor fan.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s:
1. Request for hooks to be fitted to the external communal doors.
2. Associated formal complaint.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

The landlord is ordered to pay to the resident, and not offset against any arrears, the sum of £100. This is broken down as follows:
1. £50 for time and trouble, distress and inconvenience for failing to manage the resident’s expectations in relation to his request for hooks to be installed on the doors.
2. £50 for its complaint handling failures.
The landlord must send a written apology to the resident, by a senior member of staff, for the failings identified in this report.
The landlord is ordered to provide the resident with an update on the following:
1. Whether hooks will be fitted to the communal doors or an explanation for why it is unable to fit these.
2. An update in relation to the sensory needs assessment if this has not already taken place.
Within 4 weeks of this determination the landlord must provide evidence of its compliance with the above orders.