London Borough of Brent (202213299)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202213299

London Borough of Brent

25 September 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 repairs to the resident’s back door.

Background

2.         The resident has been a secure tenant of the landlord, which is a local authority, since 2021. The property is a 1-bedroom adapted bungalow. The landlord has recorded a vulnerability for the resident as she is disabled.

3.         In July 2022, the resident reported a repair for her back door. Throughout July and August 2022, landlord logged multiple repair orders, and its contractor made several visits to the property. However, the resident reported that the issue was not fixed.

4.         During this period, there was some dispute over the nature of the work needed. The contractor reported that the resident was experiencing difficulties as she needed an accessible door, while the resident reported that the existing door was suitable, but she had been told by the contractor during an emergency repair visit that the hinges needed to be replaced.

5.         The resident made a complaint to the landlord on 23 August 2022. She said she had been waiting for over a month for the hinges to be changed. She said multiple appointments had been missed, or contractors attended without identification or confirmation of a booked appointment. She said that when the contractor did attend, they refused to change the hinges and instead realigned the door to fix the issue on the day; only for the door to drop again soon after because the hinges could not hold the weight.

6.         The resident said that she had waited an unreasonable length of time for the landlord to attend to this repair, which she believed to have been urgent due to the safety risk posed. She said she was disabled and needed this door to work properly as she could not escape by any other means in the event of a fire. She had, therefore, paid for the door to be fixed, and asked the landlord to reimburse her for the cost of the repairs (providing receipts for the work). She cited the landlord’s website which said that, in the event of its failure to conduct emergency repairs within a set time, the resident was entitled to instruct her own repairs and receive reimbursement.

7.         The landlord issued its stage 1 response on 6 September 2022 when it found that there had been delays in progressing the repair and that its communication with the resident was far from suitable or acceptable. It apologised and said feedback had been provided to the contractor and internal teams to prevent future mistakes.

8.         The resident was dissatisfied with the landlord’s response and escalated her complaint to stage 2. She said she had not been provided a refund for the repairs she had to carry out, and the landlord had failed to consider the health and safety risk posed by the faulty door and the impact of the situation on her. The landlord issued a further stage 1 response on 26 September 2022 and offered the resident £150 compensation and to reimburse the cost of door repairs she had carried out.

9.         In its stage 2 response of 26 October 2022, the landlord apologised for sending the additional stage 1 response (as it had duplicated the complaint in error), the length of time the situation was outstanding, and the unnecessary time and trouble the resident had to expend to pursue a resolution. It offered £300 compensation in addition to the £150 and repair costs previously offered.

10.  The resident remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s response and contacted the Ombudsman in October 2022, when she advised that she sought financial compensation for the repairs and installed security features.

Assessment and findings

Scope of the investigation

11.  The resident has logged other complaints with the landlord about ongoing issues with antisocial behaviour (ASB) and requests to be rehoused. This Service has provided, or is in the process of providing, information and guidance to the resident about her next steps on these complaints.

12.  As part of the ASB complaint, the resident has made a claim, which the landlord has addressed, for the cost of security features she had to install. She has also requested to be reimbursed for these same costs under this complaint about the back door as she said the landlord’s delay in addressing the issue caused her to install the additional security. However, it is the opinion of this Service that these costs are more pertinent to, and better considered as part of, the complaint concerning the ASB.

13.  This Service awards compensation in line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance. This sets out that an award can only be made for costs arising as a direct result of the landlord’s actions that were reasonably incurred by the resident. In this instance, there are underlying reasons that have played a role in the resident’s decision to install security measures which cannot be considered as part of this complaint. Therefore, the resident’s claim for the cost of installing security features is not considered further in this report.

The landlord’s handling of the door repair

14.  The landlord accepted its poor service levels in the stage 1 and 2 responses. Therefore, the question before this Service is whether those failings amount to maladministration and, if so, whether appropriate redress was offered to put things right.

15.  The landlord’s tenancy agreement says that any officers or contractors calling at the property will always show their identification cards. Its responsive repairs policy says that where appointments cannot be kept this should be advised to the resident in advance and an alternative date provided.

16.  In this case, the landlord did not always inform the resident of appointments in advance, some appointments were missed without warning, with the resident then having to reschedule them, and visits were made without identification being shown. All of these failures contributed to the delays the resident experienced in getting her requested repair.

17.  The landlord’s responsive repairs policy classes external door failure as an emergency repair and sets a target of making such work safe within 2 hours and rectified within 24 hours. This did not happen, and the landlord has accepted that there were unacceptable delays.

18.  The resident repeatedly reported the same recurring issue with the door, which should have prompted the landlord to consider whether there was a problem which its repairs were failing to resolve. There is no evidence that it reviewed its approach in this way.

19.  Further, the surveys and reports produced by the landlord and its contractor noted that the hinges were to be changed ‘where needed’, but also that the back door was working fine before then going on to list work required to it. This was conflicting and confusing, not just for the resident but in the overall situation and it no doubt added to the delays.

20.  It would have been appropriate for the landlord to proactively carry out a full inspection of the door at an earlier date and instruct specific work to be undertaken, without leaving it to the judgement of the contractor’s operatives. Further, there is no evidence that the landlord sufficiently considered the resident’s vulnerability during its handling of the repairs, despite her bringing this to its attention on multiple occasions. This failure no doubt exacerbated the resident’s distress and frustration which ultimately led her to arrange the repair herself.

21.  As identified above, there were failures in the landlord’s handling of the repairs. However, it has taken steps after the complaint was logged to redress matters. The landlord has apologised sincerely (the complaint having been reviewed by the CEO), acknowledging that the resident had been reporting issues with the door since late 2021. It provided feedback to its contractors and staff and reminded them of the importance of handling repairs in line with its standards and keeping residents informed of issues likely to impact on timescales and repairs.

22.  The landlord also fully reimbursed the resident for the cost of repairs that she presented and made a suitable award of compensation for her distress and inconvenience. These actions show that the landlord took the complaint seriously, openly acknowledged areas for improvement, and took action to rectify the identified failings. This is in line with the Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles: be fair; put things right; and learn from outcomes.

23.  The Ombudsman has, therefore, made a finding of reasonable redress and has made no orders on this complaint as the landlord has already offered appropriate and proportionate redress to the resident which satisfactorily resolves the complaint.

Determination

24.  In accordance with paragraph 53.b of the Scheme, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, there was reasonable redress offered by the landlord for its handling of the resident’s complaint about repairs of her back door.

Recommendations

25.  The Ombudsman’s finding of reasonable redress is based on the landlord’s compensation offer of £918.01. The landlord should make any part of this payment to the resident that it has not already done so.