London Borough of Ealing (202120125)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202120125

Ealing Council

21 November 2022

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 response to various repairs raised by the resident.

Background

2. The resident lives in a two-bedroom purpose-built house under a weekly tenancy since 1999. She has stated she has severe health conditions including asthma and arthritis. The landlord has not advised that it has any vulnerabilities recorded for the resident, but the property has an adapted bathroom and stair lift installed.
3. The resident raised a complaint in November 2019 in respect of a delay to repairs and poor communication. She had reported plaster falling from the ceiling in April 2019, a surveyor had attended the following month, an asbestos inspection took place in June 2019, and she was given a date for work to start in August 2019. The contractors failed to attend. She had chased the repairs and stated she suffered with severe health problems including arthritis and asthma.
4. The complaint response on 29 November 2019 explained that there were delays, partly due to the asbestos report not being sent on to the contractors, and the landlord changing contractors. The landlord said that the new contractors would make contact within seven days and offered £100 compensation for the delay in starting the repair and the lack of communication.
5. In January 2020, the contractors said the stair lift needed to be removed to enable scaffolding to be erected in the hallway. There is no evidence of any repair or communication with the resident before October 2020 when the landlord advised that due to the national lockdown, non-urgent matters would take longer than usual. An internal landlord memo in April 2021 then discussed the temporary removal of the stairlift but there was no further correspondence with the resident prior to her complaint of 15 June 2021.
6. The landlord decided to treat the complaint as being at stage three, as previous complaints by the resident (not provided) had not been formally answered. The final complaint response was issued on 26 July 2021. The issues complained about were the cracks in the hallway and kitchen and front bedroom and water damage caused by a suspected leak. The landlord said that it was still working through a backlog caused by the national lockdown, but a further survey had taken place on 14 July 2021 and a contractor arranged to trace and rectify the leaks, overhaul the windows, treat mould, supply and fit ducting, silicone windows, repair the brickwork around the lounge window and renew the timber canopy. Appointments had been arranged for August and September 2021 and a full structural survey booked to determine remedial works. The complaint was upheld due to the unacceptable delays, however no financial remedy was offered.
7. Further appointments were booked for September and October 2021 and the resident has advised that boxing in had been started but not finished, there was an attempt to fix the windows, but they were still faulty, sealant had been applied and mould treated, but she was still waiting for all repairs to be finished 32 months after they were first raised. An emergency plumber had called at 22:00 at night which she cancelled to call the next day, but he had not returned. The resident states the leak from the roof remains, as well as the rot and damage to the ceiling, gaps around windows and doors on the exterior of the property and cracks to walls throughout the property.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

8. The resident has raised issues in her correspondence with this Service, which were not included in the complaint submitted in June 2021 and are therefore not included in this investigation. This is because in accordance with paragraph 42 (a) the Ombudsman may not consider complaints which are made prior to having exhausted the landlord’s complaints procedure. This would include the work relating to the concrete paths at the property, which were identified by the surveyor in July 2021. If appropriate, the resident may raise a separate complaint about this issue.

Assessment

9. The landlord’s Repairs and Maintenance Procedure effective 2015, says at page 7 that emergency repairs are to be responded to the same day, urgent repairs in 3 working days, and routine repairs in 15 working days. Section 4.1 quotes section 11 of the Landlord & Tenant Act 1985 which says that the landlord is responsible for the structure and exterior of the property. The tenancy agreement signed in July 1999 says at section 3.1 that the landlord will keep the outside and structure of the property in good repair.
10. The landlord’s Repair Handbook says at page two that an appointment will be made to inspect repairs within three working days of being reported. Emergency repairs will be responded to within one working day. Page 10 says that major leaks and burst pipes are the responsibility of the landlord, as are minor leaks, missing roof tiles, walls and ceilings, making safe windows, window catches, handles and frames.
11. The landlord’s ‘Guidance on Compensation payments’ is for use where a resident has suffered injustice resulting from a delay by the landlord. Compensation can be paid for failure of contractors to provide a service, time and trouble, time expended by the resident, and the inadequacy of the landlord’s response. The guide says that where the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman finds maladministration, a normal maximum of £500 could be recommended. The Ombudsman notes that there are several typographical errors in the guide.
12. There was no movement on the repairs or update given to the resident at all between February and October 2020. The Ombudsman accepts that landlords will have experienced challenges in delivering services in light of the challenges posed by the national lockdown. However, a landlord would still be expected to maintain communication with residents to manage their expectations of the level of service which they could expect. This repair to was brought to the landlord’s attention in mid-2019, and the complaint in November 2019, long before the impact of the pandemic in 2020, and was yet to be completed by the time the complaint was duly made with this Service. During much of this time, the landlord failed to keep the resident informed about the progress of the repair and therefore excess effort was required of her to chase for updates. In addition, the resident has detailed several health issues, and the landlord would be aware that the property has a stair lift and adapted bathroom because of the additional challenged faced by the resident, which would add to the distress she has experienced.
13. In this case, the landlord upheld the complaint ‘due to the unacceptable prolonged delays (the resident) experienced.’ Yet it did not make an offer of compensation, despite its compensation guide detailing situations when this would be payable. The landlord’s final response listed repairs which would be undertaken, but the resident has advised that these remain unfinished, and where work had been done, further damage has been caused. The landlord has provided no evidence to suggest otherwise, and therefore it is reasonable to conclude that the work remains outstanding.
14. The landlord has acknowledged that earlier complaints were made, but that it did not respond to them formally, as it intended that the repairs were started. The landlord’s surveyor reassured the resident that he would take ownership of the issues. There was a turnover of staff within the department which meant the resident did not get a response until she complained via her local Councillor and the Chief Executive. The final complaint response appeared comprehensive and listed the repairs outstanding but there does not appear to have been any contact with the resident since this time. Having identified the substantive repair issues that the resident complained about, the landlord was then required to carry out the necessary repairs in order to resolve and close the complaint; however, there is no evidence that it took the necessary action. Taken altogether the landlord has failed to respond to the resident and meet its repairs guidance by an inordinate margin, and added to the distress of the resident by not communicating the cause of the delay.
15. This Service has also assessed whether the landlord’s actions were in accordance with the Ombudsman’s ‘dispute resolution principles,’ that is to have a process that seeks to put things right for residents, is fair, and that learns from outcomes.
16. The Ombudsman applies its dispute resolution principles in the way it considers disputes, which landlords can use as a good practice guide in complaint handling. One of the principles is ‘be fair; to treat people fairly and follow fair process.’ In this case, it would seem fair that having acknowledged that there were ‘unacceptable prolonged delays,’ the landlord should offer compensation to reflect that delay.
17. The sum of £500 compensation recommended in the landlord’s guidance is for cases which are found to have maladministration following a Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman investigation. The guidance does not list the Housing Ombudsman separately; this is unreasonable given the Housing Ombudsman has jurisdiction to consider housing complaint and provides its own guidance to landlord. The Housing Ombudsman’s guidance for cases where there was maladministration which adversely affected the resident and the landlord has made some attempt to put thing right but failed to address the detriment and make a proportionate offer, allows up to £600 compensation. Therefore, the sum of £500 recommended by the landlord’s guidance is in line with the guidance provided by both the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman. However, compensation should be proportionate to the circumstances of the case and in this case there was also a failure by the landlord to carry out works after the end of the complaints procedure.  Therefore, this Service considers that compensation at the highest end of the Housing Ombudsman’s guidance, £600, is appropriate.

Determination

18. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme there was maladministration in respect of the landlord’s handling of the repairs to the resident’s property.

Orders

19. Within four weeks of the date of this determination, the landlord should provide evidence to this Service that it has:
    1. Completed all repairs agreed in the final response dated 26 July 2021 and inspected as such.
    2. Conducted a management investigation into the service failure identified in this investigation, identify any learning and explain what it will be doing differently in the future as a result
    3. Paid the resident £600 compensation.

Recommendations

20. It is recommended that the landlord:
    1. Reviews its ‘Guidance on Compensation Payments’ making reference to the Housing Ombudsman’s Remedies Guidance and correcting the typing errors contained within it.
    2. Reminds salient staff of the importance of logging all correspondence and customer contact to better facilitate internal investigations, and to provide the Ombudsman when required.