London Borough of Brent (202207406)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202207406

London Borough of Brent

04 May 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

1. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of repairs to the:
   1. Downstairs toilet.
   2. Driveway.

Background

2. The resident is a secure tenant living with her three children at the property. The landlord is a local authority. The resident uses a wheelchair, and the property is adapted. There are two bathrooms, one upstairs and one downstairs.
3. This Service is looking at a separate complaint under case reference 202114615 relating to similar issues occurring before December 2021. In the final report relating to that complaint, the landlord offered compensation of £2,000. This investigation covers the toilet and driveway issues following that final response dated 1 December 2021.
4. Later in December 2021 the resident contacted the landlord to raise concerns about continuing delays to the repair of her downstairs toilet. She said it had been blocked for over four weeks, the macerator was making unusual noises and it posed a serious health risk. She said that the previous repairs had only been a temporary solution. The resident also noted that she had been chasing however no repairs had been completed. She was also concerned that the pathway to the property was a potential trip hazard as the landlord had refused to repair the pathway and had said that she should use the driveway, which had broken concrete.
5. The landlord upheld the complaint at stage one and apologised. It arranged for contractors to attend the property in February 2022. This was to carry out the repairs to the toilet and the driveway and it confirmed start dates with the resident. She was dissatisfied with this response and asked the landlord to escalate her complaint. The landlord’s final response upheld the complaint. It acknowledged a number of service failures and confirmed that the delays had been unacceptable. It apologised for the time taken to resolve. the time and trouble the resident had taken spent pursuing matters and the impact it had had on her. In respect of the toilet, it committed to the installation of a new macerator and a follow-up phone call to ensure the resident was happy with the workmanship and that the works had been completed to her satisfaction. The landlord offered compensation of £150 (in addition to the £2,000 compensation offered under complaint 202114615) and said the contractors would return to rectify the quality of the workmanship to the driveway.
6. When the resident approached this Service, she said she wanted the landlord to complete the works it had committed to in its final complaint response; she also wanted to be notified by the landlord when it sent operatives to complete repairs.
7. The landlord subsequently confirmed to this Service that the repairs to the toilet were completed on 27 May 2022 and the repairs to the driveway were completed on 26 April 2022.

Assessment and findings

Repairs to the toilet

8. The repairs records show the downstairs toilet has had long standing issues going back two years prior to December 2021. In the stage one response the landlord acknowledged that the delays in resolving this issue were not acceptable and it had informed the contractor of that. It said the contractor would attend in early February 2022; however, the repairs log does not give evidence of such a visit.
9. The final response said that the contractor would contact the resident to discuss the installation of a new macerator on 22 April 2022 (adding that the adaptations contractor had advised that the components meant for the resident had been used at another property in error). Again, the repairs log does not evidence the replacement of the macerator.
10. The evidence suggests that matters were eventually resolved in May 2022 some five months after they were reported.
11. The landlord was aware that the resident is a wheelchair user. Even though she had an additional toilet upstairs, her disability made it difficult for her to use it. In her complaint, the resident said that she had a stair lift and an upstairs toilet but, due to bladder issues, she was concerned that if she had an accident it could short circuit the lift. Consequently, she was afraid to use the upstairs toilet.
12. The landlord’s tenancy handbook sets out priority codes for repairs which vary from two hours for an out of hours emergency (such as a serious water leak) to 60 working days for a priority 4 repair (such as renewing a fence).
13. Given the resident’s vulnerability it would have been reasonable for it to have dealt with the repair as a higher priority than it might usually do for a second toilet in the property. The time taken of five months was not appropriate particularly given the landlord’s obligations in the Equality Act 2010 to consider variation of its services. This delay had a significant impact on the resident causing frustration and evident distress and humiliation.
14. In relation to the failures identified, the Ombudsman’s role is to consider whether the redress offered by the landlord put things right and resolved the resident’s complaint satisfactorily in the circumstances. In considering this the Ombudsman takes into account whether the landlord’s offer of redress was in line with the Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles: Be Fair, Put Things Right and Learn from Outcomes as well as our own guidance on remedies.
15. In this case the landlord offered compensation of £150 (that sum covered the impact of failings related to the toilet and the driveway). That sum does not adequately compensate the resident for the loss of a toilet for five months. Furthermore, the Ombudsman recognises that some of our residents’ circumstances mean that they are more affected by landlords’ actions or inactions than others. This might be due to their particular circumstances, or as a result of a vulnerability. Consideration of any aggravating factors (such as the resident’s physical health condition and/or any previous history of mishandling by the landlord of the resident’s tenancy) may justify an increased award to reflect the specific impact on the resident.
16. In this case, £500 is appropriate compensation. This takes into account the fact that the landlord has acknowledged previous mishandling of the toilet repair reported in 2019 through to 2021. It also takes into account the resident’s vulnerabilities and the considerable impact the loss of the downstairs toilet had on her. This sum also takes account of the landlord’s acknowledged communication failures between its contractors and the resident as outlined in its stage one response.

Repairs to the driveway

17. The disrepair to the driveway has been a longstanding issue. The repairs records show several related works orders going back two years prior to this complaint in December 2021. In the stage one response the landlord said that the driveway contractor would attend on 21 February 2002 to start the works.
18. On the 5 April 2022 an operative attended to post-inspect and concluded that whilst the work to the driveway had been done, there was foliage to be cleared, the area needed to be cemented and the lip to the garage door pointed. Another post-inspection took place on 13 April by a senior surveyor who noted that most of the works had been completed correctly apart from along the front of the garage door and around the drain gully. The evidence suggests that these works were completed a few days later.
19. The landlord’s final response acknowledged that the works did not start according to the proposed schedule. Again, given the resident’s vulnerability it would have been reasonable for it to have dealt with the repair as a higher priority than it might usually do for a driveway. This Service finds that the driveway would have been the only means of access to the property (the landlord had discouraged the resident from using the pathway). As a wheelchair user, this would have been an unsatisfactory situation for her. She was also concerned it was a health and safety trip hazard for her father whenever he visited her.
20. The compensation offered by the landlord does not adequately reflect the impact on the resident. The sum of £200 better reflects the impact on the resident in the circumstances (this replaces the sum of £150 previously offered).

Determination

21. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration by the landlord in respect of its handling of the resident’s reports of repairs to the:
    1. Downstairs toilet.
    2. Driveway

Orders

22. The landlord shall take the following action within four weeks of the date of this report and provide this Service with evidence of compliance with these orders.
    1. Apologise in writing to the resident in writing for the service failings identified in this report.
    2. Pay the resident compensation of £700 (minus the £150 previously offered, if this has already been paid):
       1. £500 for the impact on the resident as a result of the identified service failures relating to the toilet repairs.
       2. £200 for the impact on the resident as a result of the identified service failures relating to the driveway repairs.