London Borough of Barnet (202222088)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202222088

London Borough of Barnet

21 August 2024


Our approach

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

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

The complaint

  1. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s:
    1. Reports of repairs.
    2. Associated complaint.

Background

  1. The resident has a secure tenancy which began on 9 January 2006.
  2. The landlord is aware of the residents disability and other vulnerabilities.
  3. The landlord fitted bathroom floor tiles for the resident as an offer of good will due to delays with previous reported repairs. No evidence was provided to the Ombudsman of the date this work was carried out. On 22 July and 2 November 2022, the resident told the landlord a bathroom floor tile had raised, causing a trip hazard.
  4. The resident made a complaint to the landlord on 30 March 2023. She said:
    1. It had not completed repairs to a satisfactory standard since 2020.
    2. She was unhappy with how it had dealt with her previous complaints.
    3. The bathroom floor tiles which she purchased were laid by the landlord to a poor standard. She had notified the landlord a tile had lifted, and it had not taken any action. She had been injured several times by this tile.
    4. The landlord had no respect for her time and was not taking her disability into consideration.
    5. She wanted to request a subject access request (SAR) for all repairs and complaints since 2020.
  5. On 3 May 2023 the landlord issued its stage 1 complaint response. It partially upheld the resident’s complaint. In its response it:
    1. Said it had responded to the residents 2 previous complaints at stage 1. The resident did not escalate these complaints. It therefore did not uphold this part of her complaint.
    2. Upheld her complaint about the bathroom floor tiles. It said it would repair the tiles that had lifted and were causing a trip hazard but would not replace all the tiles. It accepted there had been delays for the tiles to be repaired due to it cancelling the repair and the nationwide shortage of labour.
    3. Said its contractor had contacted the resident to carry out the repair.
    4. Confirmed the SAR was sent to the resident on 27 April 2023.
    5. Apologised the resident had sustained injuries from the raised tile and referred this to its insurance team who had sent the claim forms to the resident on 2 May 2023.
    6. Offered the resident £30 compensation for the delay in carrying out the repair.
  6. The resident escalated the complaint on 1 June 2023. She said the bathroom tile had not been fixed and she had sustained further injuries.
  7. On 9 July 2023 the landlord issued its stage 2 complaint response. It upheld the complaint. In its response it:
    1. Said the contractor attended to fix the broken tile, however, said a plumber would need to remove the toilet. The landlord’s repair team said this was not necessary and it would repair the tile on 27 July 2023.
    2. Said it was difficult for it to assess historical works carried out without visiting the property. It would visit the resident with the planned works manager on 7 August 2023 to review the condition of the property.
    3. Acknowledged that its handling of fitting the tiles was poor.
    4. Said its offer of compensation in its stage 1 response was reasonable and it would not be able to offer more than this for the delays. It noted that the resident had submitted a public liability insurance claim for her injuries caused by the tiles.

Events following completion of the landlord’s internal complaints process

  1. The landlord replaced all the bathroom floor tiles on 29 January 2024.

Assessment and findings

Scope of the investigation

  1. The resident has raised issues with the landlord’s handling of repairs and previous complaints that date back to 2020. This investigation has focussed on the issues the resident raised in her complaint to the landlord in March 2023. This investigation will not consider the repair issues or the resident’s complaints prior to this. This is because as the substantive issues become historical it is increasingly difficult for either the landlord, or an independent body such as the Ombudsman, to conduct an effective review of the actions taken to address those issues.
  2. Whilst this Service is an alternative to the courts, it is unable to establish legal liability or whether a landlord’s actions or lack of action have had a detrimental impact on the resident’s health or wellbeing. The Ombudsman is therefore unable to consider the resident’s claims that the landlord’s handling of repairs had a negative impact on her health and wellbeing. These matters are better suited to be considered by a court or via a personal injury claim. Nonetheless, consideration has been given to the general distress and inconvenience which the situation may have caused the resident.
  3. The Ombudsman will not propose a remedy of compensation to reimburse a resident for their time off work, loss of wages or loss of employment whilst repairs are carried out. Whilst such works will inevitably cause some inconvenience to residents, their occupancy agreement will require them to give access for repairs to be carried out, and it would not be fair or reasonable for the Ombudsman to order a landlord to pay a resident reimbursement for loss of earnings for routine appointments. However, there may be circumstances when the Ombudsman decides that it is appropriate to make an order that a landlord pays compensation in recognition of the inconvenience caused, for example where repairs appointments are repeatedly missed or fail to resolve the repair issue.

The landlord’s obligations

  1. The resident’s tenancy agreement states that the resident has the right to carry out improvements to her home as long as she seeks permission from the landlord. There is no automatic duty on the landlord to make improvements and they are not usually the landlord’s responsibility.
  2. Local authorities are expected to comply with the Decent Home Standard, which requires properties are free of category 1 hazards. The Housing Health and Safety Rating System sets out what circumstances give rise to hazards, which includes falls on level surfaces. 
  3. The landlord operates a 2 stage complaints procedure. Its complaint’s policy states it will acknowledge a complaint within 5 working days. It will respond to stage 1 complaints within 10 working days and stage 2 complaints within 20 working days.
  4. The landlord’s compensation procedure states the landlord will pay a discretionary payment when it has taken an unreasonable time to resolve a situation and/or there was avoidable distress or inconvenience. The procedure does not provide examples of the amount of compensation it would offer.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of repairs

  1. The resident reported to the landlord that a bathroom floor tile had lifted on 22 July 2022. Although the resident would usually be responsible for any issues related to improvements, in its stage 1 complaint response dated 3 May 2023 the landlord agreed to replace the loose floor tiles as it had installed them for the resident. The landlord replaced all the bathroom floor tiles on 29 January 2024. This was 382 working days after the resident reported the issue. This was a significant delay.
  2. A landlord should have systems in place to maintain accurate records of repair reports, responses, inspections, investigations, and communications. Good record keeping is essential if the landlord is to fulfil its statutory repair obligations. The landlord’s staff should be aware of a landlord’s record management policy and procedures and adhere to these. It is the Ombudsman’s opinion that the landlord has failed to maintain adequate records. It failed to effectively record the residents reports of the loose floor tile which led to the repair job being cancelled. It failed to effectively log its communication with the resident, and its repairs team and contractors. There was also limited information recorded for repair appointments. The failures in the landlord’s knowledge and information management caused significant delays in reports of the repair being picked up and the works being carried out.
  3. There was evidence of poor communication from the landlord throughout this investigation. It failed to respond to the resident’s reports of the loose floor tile for 8 months, it failed to notify her when appointments were rearranged, and repeatedly failed to deliver the commitments it made. The lack of communication from the landlord left the resident in a position where she did not know if or when the repair was going to be resolved. This led to her reporting the same issues several times and repeatedly chasing updates. The landlord acted inappropriately by failing to effectively communicate with the resident and manage her expectations. This caused the resident significant distress and inconvenience.
  4. The contractual obligation remains between the landlord and the resident. The landlord was therefore responsible for updating the resident, setting expectations of when visits will take place, and notifying the resident if delays were expected. The landlord failed to do this and often told the resident to arrange appointments and communicate with the contractor directly. The landlord failed to take a pro-active approach to the repairs, which contributed to the delays in the repair being carried out.
  5. The landlord was aware of the resident’s disability and vulnerabilities. On 30 March 2023 the resident told the landlord she felt it was not taking her disability into consideration and she had injured herself several times on the raised floor tile. There was no evidence it communicated with the resident about any risks or carried out a risk assessment. At the time of this investigation, the landlord told the Ombudsman it had no vulnerabilities recorded for the resident. The resident’s vulnerabilities were relevant factors to inform the nature, tone, and communication of the landlord’s handling of repairs. At the time the repair was reported the landlord should have reviewed its response in terms of the level of detriment being caused to the resident and agreed a clear communication strategy and action plan with the resident to seek to understand the extent of the repair and the works required. This was a significant failing.
  6. The resident told the Ombudsman she informed the landlord she struggled to communicate in writing due to her disability. The Ombudsman was not provided with any evidence that the landlord was made aware of this, however it was aware of her disability. Under the Equality Act 2010 landlords are required to take positive steps to ensure disabled residents can access their services as easily as non-disabled residents. Landlords should make adjustments when disabled residents are placed at a substantial disadvantage because of their disability compared to non-disabled people. The reasonable adjustment duty is ‘anticipatory’, meaning landlords cannot wait until a disabled resident needs to use its service. It must consider in advance what disabled residents may reasonably need to access its services.
  7. No evidence has been provided to show the landlord considered what adjustments, support or sign posting may have been required to assist the resident to effectively navigate the repair process and visits to her home. The landlord acted inappropriately by not having due regard for its duties under the Equality Act 2010 and accordingly failed to offer the resident appropriate support.
  8. The landlord acted appropriately by referring the resident to its insurance team so she could submit a public liability insurance claim for the injuries she sustained from the raised floor tile. The Ombudsman is unable to comment on the outcome of the insurance claim, as we can only consider the actions of the landlord.
  9. In its stage 2 response the landlord upheld the complaint, it acknowledged and apologised for the further delays in the repair being completed. However, it said its offer of compensation in its stage 1 response was reasonable. It failed to consider the impact the on-going delays was having on the resident. This was not resident focused.
  10. The landlord gave conflicting amounts of compensation, it offered £30 in its stage 1 complaint response, and then in its stage 2 complaint response said it had offered £300 at stage 1. Although the landlord told the Ombudsman this was an administrative error, this would have caused the resident confusion at the time.
  11. In summary there was a significant delay in the landlord repairing the bathroom floor. There was evidence of poor communication and record keeping. It did not consider the resident’s vulnerabilities or any risks. The landlord acknowledged and apologised for some of its failings during the internal complaint process, however, it did not take sufficient steps to put things right. It also did not show any learning as it continued to communicate poorly with the resident and failed to complete the works by the date it promised in its complaint responses. The landlord’s offer of £30 compensation for the delays in the repairs being carried out does not reflect the failings reflected in this investigation or the time, trouble, distress and inconvenience caused to the resident. It is also not in line with the Ombudsman’s remedy guidance.
  12. Based on the above, the Ombudsman finds maladministration for the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of repairs.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s associated complaint

  1. The resident raised a complaint to the landlord on 30 March 2023. The landlord acknowledged this on 4 April 2023, which was within its target response timescale of 5 working days. The landlord acted appropriately by contacting the resident on 13 April 2023 to discuss a resolution to the complaint.
  2. The landlord provided its stage 1 complaint response on 3 May 2023, this was outside its target response timescale of 10 working days. The landlord contacted the resident on 20 April 2023 to extend its timeframe, however, this was already outside its target timescale. The landlord acted inappropriately by failing to communicate effectively with the resident and manage her expectations.
  3. The landlord’s stage 1 complaint response considered all the complaint issues the resident raised. It detailed what action it was going to take, however, it did not provide details of timescales for when the repair would be completed. The response also included the wrong date for when the resident contacted the landlord to report the loose tile. This would have caused the resident confusion and frustration that her complaint had not been fully investigated. The landlord acted inappropriately for not resolving the complaint at the earliest opportunity.
  4. The resident asked the landlord to escalate her complaint on 1 June 2023. The landlord acknowledged this on 8 June 2023, which was within its 5 working day timescale. No evidence was provided to the Ombudsman that the landlord contacted the resident to discuss a resolution to the complaint before providing its stage 2 response.
  5. The landlord provided its stage 2 complaint response on 9 July 2023, this was just outside its 20-working day target response timescale. The landlord failed to notify the resident that it needed to extend the deadline for its response.
  6. Landlords must have an effective complaint process to provide a good service to their residents. An effective complaint process means landlords can fix problems quickly, learn from their mistakes and build good relationships with residents. In this case the landlord failed to provide its stage 1 and 2 responses within its target response timescales, and there was evidence of poor communication and record keeping. The landlord failed to acknowledge any of these failings in its complaint responses, there was no evidence of any learning, and it failed to offer redress in line with the Ombudsman’s remedy guidance.
  7. Based on the above, the Ombudsman finds service failure in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in respect of the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of repairs.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure in respect of the landlord’s complaint handling.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

  1. Within 4 weeks of the date of this report the landlord is ordered to:
    1. Apologise to the resident. A member of the senior leadership team must provide the apology to the resident.
    2. In addition to the £30 compensation awarded in the stage 1 response dated 3 May 2023, the landlord must pay the resident a further £600 compensation. This is broken down as:
      1. £500 for the distress, inconvenience, time and trouble caused to the resident by its handling of the repairs.
      2. £100 for the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident by its complaint handling failures.
  2. The landlord must carry out a case review of its practices in relation to responding to requests for repairs and complaints. The review must be carried out within 8 weeks and a copy should be provided to the Ombudsman. The review should include as a minimum (but is not limited to):
    1. Why reasonable adjustments were not considered and implemented.
    2. Its lack of consideration of risk and the impact the delays had on the resident.
    3. Its record keeping practices in relation to repairs and the recording of resident’s vulnerabilities. If it has not done so already, consider implementing a knowledge and information management strategy, in line with the Ombudsman’s spotlight report on knowledge and information management.
    4. Consider its staff’s training needs to ensure all relevant officers:
      1. Respond to requests for repairs appropriately and progresses works orders involving its contractors in an efficient and timely manner, and in accordance with its relevant policies and procedures
      2. Respond to formal complaints appropriately. It should ensure all relevant officers do so in an efficient and timely manner, and in accordance with its relevant policies and procedures and the Ombudsman’s complaint handling code. This includes recognising complaints that are made verbally.
      3. Accurately record resident’s vulnerabilities and consider reasonable adjustments.

Recommendations

  1. The landlord should consider reviewing its compensation procedure to look at including guidance to its staff on the amount of compensation that would be fair and reasonable to offer.