London Borough of Croydon (202109511)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202109511

Croydon Council

9 February 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 standard and quality of work carried out at the property, including to the bathroom and kitchen.

Jurisdiction

  1. Two of the resident’s related complaints about the landlord have previously been determined by the Ombudsman:
    1. Case 201813743 about the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about repairs relating to mould and damp at the property, the subsequent decant, and complaint handling.
    2. Case 202008020 about the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about how it handled her rent and council tax accounts following a decant from her permanent property.
  2. The above matters are referred to below as background; however, as these matters have already been decided upon, they will not be re-investigated. This report focuses on the complaint defined at paragraph 1 above.
  3. In her complaint to the Ombudsman the resident raised several concerns which were not considered in the course of the landlord’s complaints procedure, including but not limited to: damp and mould in the bathroom, the condition of sealant in the bathroom, sections of skirting board missing in the kitchen, the condition of linoleum at the property, and the condition of French doors at the property. Paragraph 42 (a) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme sets out that: “The Ombudsman may not consider complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, are made prior to having exhausted a member’s complaints procedure, unless there is evidence of a complaint-handling failure and the Ombudsman is satisfied that the member has not taken action within a reasonable timescale.” These matters have not exhausted the landlord’s complaints procedure and therefore will not form part of the assessment of this case.

Background and summary of events

  1. The resident is a secure tenant of the landlord which is a local authority. The property is a house. The tenancy commenced on 1 November 2010.
  2. On 31 July 2019, the landlord wrote to the resident setting out works it would carry out at the property to address mould and damp, including installing thermal boarding. This included a commitment to protect the upstairs flooring during works. The resident was decanted from the property in August 2019 so work could be carried out. A quote dated 9 November 2019 describes the work the landlord intended to carry out, including removing wall fixtures and fittings, fitting a ‘vapour barrier’ and insulation, and restoring fixtures and fittings. It also intended to renew the basin in the bathroom.
  3. On 15 September 2020 the resident emailed the landlord describing work she expected to be carried out before she returned to the property which included:
    1. Replacing the front door.
    2. Sanding and revarnishing upstairs flooring.
    3. Cut back and prevent plant growth into the kitchen.
    4. Provide adequate space for her refrigerator / freezer, which had been reduced by the installation of the ‘vapour barrier’ and insulation.
    5. Reinstall a radiator.
    6. Clear refuse from the property.
    7. Provide access to the stopcock.
  4. She also described work that she would be prepared for the landlord to carry out after her return to the property, including:
    1. Preventing the kitchen door banging on a nearby radiator when opened.
    2. Reinstall the bathroom sink to sit straight along tiles.
    3. Re-tile the bathroom to ensure tiles were level and aligned.
    4. Cut back and clear gardens to the front and rear.
    5. Repair the side gate, which contractors had taken off to access the rear of the property and had re-installed inadequately.
    6. Repairs to electrical outlets.

Formal complaint

  1. On 29 September 2020 the resident complained that:
    1. contractors did not cover the flooring and that flooring was damaged as a result.
    2. there were now gaps between the front door and the doorway, letting cold air enter and/or heat escape from the property.
    3. the garden had not been kept during her decant and rubbish had been left.
  2. In subsequent correspondence the resident repeated her concerns about the space left for the refrigerator / freezer, and that the bathroom layout had been altered.
  3. The landlord inspected the property with the resident on 14 October 2020. Email correspondence between landlord staff following this visit recommended the following, which it said it had discussed and agreed with the resident:
    1. Remedy the front door frame which it described as poorly fitted, presenting a security issue and looking unacceptable.
    2. Remedy damage to flooring upstairs.
    3. Remove bulk refuse from gardens at the property.
    4. Adjust a kitchen cupboard to allow the refrigerator / freezer to fit, noting that this appliance was essential for a family with children;
  4. It noted that bathroom tiles were on a “negligible” slant which it considered disproportionate to remedy. Photographs appear to show a spirit level used to demonstrate this position. It noted that the kitchen door could be prevented from hitting the radiator by using a doorstop, and that a shower screen would come into contact with the sink if pushed far enough though did not suggest a remedy or whether one was required.
  5. The resident emailed again on 25 October 2020 adding further concerns including that the bathroom had previously been adapted after an Occupational Therapist (OT) assessment in 2016, and that the work carried out in the bathroom had undone aspects of this work including: the sink had been replaced with a smaller one, the toilet had been moved too close to the bath preventing any future supporting frame being installed, a grab rail had been removed which had previously been used to assist getting in and out of the shower, and a shower screen had been installed which could not be opened adequately due to the position of the sink.
  6. The landlord responded to the complaint on 24 November 2020. It said:
    1. The front door had been remedied.
    2. The fridge space was standard and it would not carry out any further work, but advised the resident she may move the obstructing cupboard.
    3. The bathroom sink was of standard size.
    4. The toilet position did not pose any problems and would not be moved.
    5. The bathroom tiles did not require replacement and the work was of appropriate quality.
    6. The position of the shower screen allowed room to step out of the bath without opening the screen, but this could be replaced at the resident’s cost if she wished.
    7. The garden had been cut down and cleared of refuse.
    8. It accepted its contractors had acted inappropriately regarding the side gate, and that it had passed the matter to contractors for comment.
    9. The flooring was left in the condition which it was found
  7. The resident wrote to the landlord on 21 January 2021 expressing continued dissatisfaction and asking for a review at stage two of the landlord’s complaints procedure. She repeated her complaints about the condition of the front door, space left for the refrigerator / freezer, the bathroom layout (again referring to the previous OT assessment and adaptations), the condition the side gate had been left in, and damage to flooring. 
  8. The landlord’s final response to the complaint is dated 19 February 2021:
    1. It said that the front door did not require repair.
    2. It said that it could remove thermal boarding to ensure the  fit in the space it previously occupied, but this would risk mould returning and that, if it did so, the resident would be responsible for maintenance; alternatively a wall cupboard could be removed to provide space
    3. It said that the bathroom was in good condition and required no further work
    4. It said that floorboards were in the condition they were before work commenced.
    5. It explained that contractors had removed screws to access the side gate in the absence of the padlock key but failed to record this; this had since been fixed and that relevant staff and contractors had been reminded to carefully record measures taken to gain access.
    6. It said that the garden had been left neat and tidy with one staff member personally removing bulky waste.
    7. It said that based on reports, conversations with staff and viewing photographs, it was satisfied that the work carried out to the property was of a good standard, but acknowledged the distress evident in the resident’s correspondence.
  9. The resident referred the complaint to the landlord’s complaints panel. On 19 October 2021 the panel recommended replacing the resident’s refrigerator / freezer with one which would fit in the space provided.
  10. The resident referred her complaint to the Ombudsman. She remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s response to her concerns about:
    1. The front door.
    2. The space available for the refrigerator / freezer.
    3. The suitability of the bathroom layout in relation to the previous OT recommendations.
    4. The standard and quality of tiling work in the bathroom.
    5. The condition of the flooring upstairs at the property.

Assessment and findings

  1. The Landlord and Tenant Act 1985, Section 11 sets out repairing obligations for landlords:
    1. to keep in repair the structure and exterior of the dwelling- house
    2. to keep in repair and property working order the installations in the dwelling-house for the supply of water, gas and electricity and for sanitation.  
  2. The landlord’s repair guide for tenants also states its responsibilities and expected timeframes. It stated that semi–planned repairs have a target response time of 60 working days. These are repairs that are considered large but non urgent, in order to keep the property in a reasonable condition.

Front door.

  1. The documentary evidence regarding the condition of the front door is inconsistent. One member of landlord staff considered the door was in an unacceptable condition. The landlord said no repairs would be carried out, then said repairs had been carried out and finally that the door did not require repair,
  2. The landlord’s final position on this was based on photographs taken at the property rather than any documented first-hand account of the condition of the door, and included no reference to the resident’s position that cold air was entering the property as a result of gaps or the original position that there were security concerns as a result. There is no evidence of any repairs being carried out, nor is there any documented first-hand onsite inspection by a member of staff to evidence the landlord’s final position, which would have been a reasonable and appropriate means of resolving this dispute or at least evidencing the landlord’s position. There is no evidence that the landlord has adequately complied with its repairing obligations in relation to the front door.

Space available for refrigerator / freezer.

  1. The landlord’s position in relation to the space let for the refrigerator-freezer was inconsistent. It initially considered it reasonable to adjust the top cupboard to provide the required space, then later said that the space provided was “standard”. There is no reference to what standard the landlord was relying on. It’s change in position was therefore unreasonable.
  2. The initial suggestion made by the landlord to adjust the cupboard was agreed with the resident and may have resolved the issue. In the absence of evidence to support it’s changed position it would have been reasonable for the landlord to follow up as originally suggested.

Bathroom.

  1. The resident raised several concerns about the new bathroom installation and layout, describing hazards to herself and her daughter in relation to disability and mobility issues including that a grab rail was removed.
  2. The landlord failed to address the resident’s concerns that the works carried out in the bathroom meant the bathroom was no longer suitable in relation to a previous OT assessment. Of particular concern is the resident’s position that a grab rail had been removed. Before removing any adaptations, it would have been appropriate for the landlord to investigate its records for any previous OT assessment and to take this into consideration when planning works, or to at least discuss the removal of any adaptations with the resident and/or an OT. It would also have been reasonable for the landlord to investigate its records and respond to the resident’s concerns about the matter when responding to her complaint. There is no evidence that it undertook any such investigation or gave any reasonable response to those concerns.
  3. The landlord commented that space in the bathroom was limited, which is a reasonable position. The resident’s specific concern with the position of the toilet is difficult to determine from the evidence, although she explains that the original position allowed access to the sink, window, and the potential for future adaptations such as a toilet frame. However, similarly to the above, the landlord said that the location of the toilet posed no problems; there is no evidence to support this assertion. This could also have been responded to more appropriately by the landlord with reference to any previous OT assessment or an updated assessment. The landlord’s response was therefore unreasonable.

Tiling.

  1. The landlord considered the resident’s concerns about the standard and quality of the tiling in the bathroom. There is no evidence that its decision regarding the proportionality of any work to level or replace tiling was unreasonable or inappropriate, or that this causes any adverse affect to the resident. The landlord is entitled to rely on its surveyor’s opinion on the proportionality of carrying out any further tiling work. The landlord’s response to this aspect of the complaint was reasonable.

Flooring.

  1. When the resident informed the landlord of damage caused to the floorboards in the bedroom and upstairs hallway, the landlord investigated this but was unable to determine whether the damage had been caused by its contractors when moving furniture. The evidence shows that the operative had stated there was visible damage and noted this could have happened when moving furniture. However at a later date the landlord had stated the floors were protected prior to work commencing and that contractors had been careful.
  2. There is no evidence to support the resident’s position that the flooring at the property was damaged during works, nor is there any to support the landlord’s position that it was not. This dispute cannot be resolved; however, it was unreasonable of the landlord to state this position without evidence.

Determination (decision)

  1. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of poor workmanship.

Reasons

  1. There is no evidence that the landlord adequately discharged its repairing obligations in relation to the front door, and no evidence to support its positions in relation to: the space available for the resident’s refrigerator / freezer, bathroom layout or the resident’s claims about damage to the flooring.

Orders and recommendations

  1. The landlord is ordered to pay the resident £350 compensation within four weeks of this decision. This compensation is in relation to the distress and inconvenience caused by the service failures identified in our investigation.
  2. The landlord is ordered to contact the resident within four weeks of this decision to arrange a mutually convenient appointment for an Occupational Therapist to visit to assess the suitability of the bathroom and recommend any aids and adaptations.
  3. The landlord is ordered to provide any minor aids or adaptations recommended within two months of the date of the Occupational Therapist’s assessment ordered above, or sooner if deemed urgent by the Occupational Therapist.
  4. The landlord is ordered to contact the resident within four weeks to arrange a mutually convenient appointment for a member of the landlord’s repairs team to inspect the property and assess whether any further repairs are necessary.
  5. A copy of a written report of the above-ordered inspection is to be provided to the resident and to the Ombudsman within four weeks of the inspection.
  6. Any necessary repairs should be completed within two months of the date of the above-ordered inspection, or within the timescales set out in the landlord’s repairs and maintenance policy if major work is identified.