London Borough of Ealing (202303968)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202303968

London Borough of Ealing

06 March 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

The resident’s complaint is about:
1. The landlord’s handling of a request to refurbish the resident’s bathroom.
2. The landlord’s handling of requests for repairs to the bathroom.
The Ombudsman has also investigated the landlord’s complaints handling.

Background

The resident has a secure tenancy for a 3 bed house with the landlord. The tenancy was assigned to the resident in 2019. She lives at the property with her brother, her sister, and her young child.
Requests for repairs to the bathroom, including repairs to the toilet due to leaks, to address low water pressure, and to repair the extractor fan, were made by the resident between 2021 and 2023. The landlord attended each time the issue was reported, with records indicating that the repairs were carried out promptly. Issues with the toilet leaking were reported 6 times between 2021 and 2023.
The resident’s bathroom was last renovated in 2004. Due to the issues that the resident had been experiencing with the condition of the bathroom, she asked the landlord to refurbish the bathroom as it had recently agreed to install a new kitchen. The resident states that she asked the contractor who came to inspect the kitchen pre-refurbishment about the bathroom, with the contractor stating that the bathroom was in good enough condition so would not be refurbished.
The resident then made a formal complaint about the refusal to refurbish her bathroom on 28 February 2023. In her complaint, the resident stated that the bathroom was old, with low water pressure, and that the toilet was old and leaked. She asked that another survey was carried out by her landlord to see if her bathroom met the Decent Homes Standard.
The landlord issued a Stage 1 response on 8 March 2023. It told the resident that it had reviewed the validation survey which had been carried out by the contractor and that it believed the bathroom was in a ‘decent’ condition and did not require replacing. It asked the resident to report issues with the toilet and low water pressure to its customer services team. The complaint was not upheld for these reasons.
The resident asked for escalation of her complaint, although it is not clear when this request was made. In the escalation request, the resident explained that she believed the toilet ‘appears to be decent if you look from a certain angle’ and that the contractor did not do a closer inspection of the issues she raised. She stated that the leaks had caused damage to the floor and boards behind the toilet, that sealant around the windowsills and washbasin had worn away, and that boards near the door were crumbling. The bathroom walls had issues with mould which the resident had treated herself by painting over but it looked like the mould was coming back. The resident asked again for another survey of the bathroom.
A Stage 2 response was issued on 3 April 2023. It stated that the landlord’s contractor had attended on 17 January 2023 and repaired the toilet, and that no leaks had been found when contractors had previously attended on 20 July 2022. It stated that the landlord was not responsible for maintenance or replacement of floorboards or for replacement of sealant and asked the resident to report issues with damp and mould to its specialist damp and mould team. The resident’s complaint was not upheld. The resident has told this Service that she emailed the specialist damp and mould team after receipt of the Stage 2 response, but she has not had a response.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s handling of a request to refurbish the resident’s bathroom.

Under the Decent Homes Standard, social landlords should maintain their properties to ensure that they are:
1. Free of any hazards which would be classed as Category 1 under the Housing Health and Safety Rating System.
2. In a reasonable state of repair.
3. Have reasonably modern facilities and services.
4. Provide a reasonable amount of thermal comfort.
Properties which fail to meet the ‘reasonably modern facilities and services’ criteria are those which lack three or more of the following:
1. A kitchen aged 20 years old or less.
2. A kitchen with adequate space and layout.
3. A bathroom aged 30 years old or less.
4. An appropriately located bathroom and toilet.
5. Adequate insulation against external noise (if external noise is a problem).
6. Adequate size and layout of common areas for blocks of flats.
The landlord has informed this Service that the resident’s bathroom was last refurbished in 2004. As the bathroom is less than 30 years old, the resident’s bathroom does not breach the Decent Homes Standard in its own right. However, the property as a whole may still breach the Decent Homes Standard if three or more of the other points listed above are present.
As the resident’s bathroom is aged less than 30 years old and there is no other indication that the resident’s property fails to meet the ‘reasonably modern facilities and services’ criteria set out in the Decent Homes Standard, this Service does not find fault with the landlord’s consideration of whether to refurbish the bathroom under this Standard.
Due to the landlord acting in accordance with guidelines for the Decent Homes Standard, and as the landlord was entitled to rely on the outcome of its survey, this Service has found no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of a request to refurbish the resident’s bathroom.

The landlord’s handling of requests for repairs.

Section 11 of Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 implies a term into the resident’s tenancy agreement that the landlord must keep the structure and exterior of the resident’s property in repair, including flooring. The landlord also has to keep installations for the provision of gas, electricity, water, sanitation (including sinks and toilets), hot water, and space heating in good repair and proper working order. Section 9A of Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 implies a similar term into the tenancy agreement that the landlord has to ensure that the property is fit for human habitation throughout the lifetime of the tenancy. Both legal obligations are triggered when the landlord is notified of an issue. The landlord then has a reasonable period of time to carry out works for which it is liable.
The leaking toilet fell under the landlord’s repairing obligation as covered by Section 11 and could fall under section 9A if it made the property unfit for human habitation. Although the landlord responded promptly to reports of leaks and carried out repairs, it did not take into account the resident’s comments and concerns and review the history of the leaks and consider whether it was more appropriate to replace the toilet entirely. As there were at least 6 leaks over a 2 year period, it would have been reasonable for the landlord to have assessed whether replacing the toilet was a more effective way of tackling the leaks.
The landlord also had a legal obligation to carry out repairs to areas of the property which had been affected by the leak. The resident has told this Service that the leak pooled around the base of the toilet and that water often leaked down into the kitchen below the bathroom. It is reasonable therefore to assume that the issues with the bathroom flooring raised by the resident are associated with the leak and the landlord should have investigated this to see if repairs were required. As the leak may have been waste water from the toilet, the landlord should have also investigated if the leak posed a risk to the health and safety of the resident and other occupiers of the property and whether measures were required to tackle this.
The reported low water pressure may have fallen under the landlord’s obligation to ensure that the installations in the property for provision of water were in good repair and proper working order. However, the Ombudsman acknowledges that the landlord may not have a legal obligation to carry out repairs to address the low water pressure if the root cause is due to disrepair of an installation which is not owned by the landlord, is not in its control, or where it is in part of a building which is not owned by the landlord (for example, if low water pressure is caused by a leaking water pipe outside of the resident’s property in land not owned by the landlord). An investigation into the cause of the low water pressure should have taken place with the resident clearly informed on the outcome of the investigation and whether the landlord would carry out repairs.
The landlord had an obligation to ensure that sanitary installations (including sinks) are in good repair and proper working order. Taking this into account along with the resident’s overall concerns about the condition of the bathroom, it should have inspected the bathroom sink and considered whether it was reasonable to renew the sealant itself.
When the landlord became aware of issues with damp and mould in the resident’s bathroom, it should have investigated this issue and decided on what action it could take to help resolve this issue. It is of concern that the landlord asked the resident to get in contact with its specialist damp and mould team rather than refer her directly. It is also concerning that the resident has told this Service that the landlord’s specialist team did not get in touch with the resident after she emailed them on 5 April 2023 as per the suggestion in the Stage 2 complaint response.
This Service acknowledges that issues with damp and mould and damage to the bathroom flooring due to the leaks were raised by the resident during the complaints process rather than reported to the landlord’s repairs team. However, the landlord should have considered these as requests for repairs and arranged a further inspection to see if repairs were required.
Although the landlord did assess the bathroom against Decent Homes Standards, it should have considered whether refurbishing the bathroom would have been the most effective way to meet its legal obligations to carry out certain repairs and/or ensure that the property was fit for human habitation.
Due to the landlord’s failure to assess whether it should have replaced the toilet completely, failure to assess whether further repairs were required to resolve disrepair associated with the leak, failure to assess whether the leak posed a health risk to the resident and those living with her, failure to inspect the bathroom sink and assess whether to renew the sealant, and failure to investigate low water pressure, this Service has found service failure in the landlord’s handling of requests for repairs.

The landlord’s complaints handling.

The landlord operates a two stage complaints process. Stage 1 complaints are acknowledged within 4 working days with a response within 20 working days. Escalation requests should be made within 28 days of receiving a Stage 1 complaint response. The landlord’s complaints policy does not state that escalation requests will be acknowledged, although it does state that a Stage 2 response will be provided within 20 working days. This is not in line with the Ombudsman’s current Complaint Handling Code, which states that landlords must respond to the initial complaint within 10 working days of the complaint being logged.
The landlord has told this Service that acknowledgements of complaint are automatically generated and that it does not keep records of acknowledgements.
The Stage 1 response was provided 7 working days after the resident made her complaint, which is within the timescales recommended in the current Complaint Handling Code. This response considered the points raised by the resident and provided a comprehensive response to why the landlord was not prepared to refurbish the bathroom, pointing out that refurbishment of a bathroom is not required to repair a leaking toilet. However, the tone of the letter is unsympathetic and put an onus on the resident taking action to report the toilet leak and the low water pressure to the landlord via the customer services team. The Ombudsman considers that it would have been appropriate for the complaints team to pass the requests for repairs to the team responsible for repairs and maintenance of the resident’s property, rather than asking the resident to do this herself. This is because the purpose of a complaints procedure is to help resolve issues, put things right, and to be focussed on seeking solutions for residents.
The earliest date that the resident could have made an escalation request was 8 March 2023, the date that the Stage 1 response was issued. The Stage 2 response was issued on 3 April 2023, 19 working days after the Stage 1 response. This complies with the current Complaint Handling Code.
The Stage 2 response is brief, unsympathetic, and did not reconsider the resident’s complaint about the landlord’s refusal to refurbish her bathroom other than to uphold the original refusal. Instead, it focused on the toilet leak, issues with sealant, and damp and mould. The response erroneously stated that the landlord is not responsible for the maintenance or replacement of the resident’s floorboards. It also stated that repairs to sealant are the resident’s responsibility and referred the resident to its repairs handbook: the repairs handbook makes no mention of repairs to sealant in sinks being the responsibility of the resident. It also put an unfair onus on the resident to make a separate report about damp and mould to a different team.
Due to the unsympathetic handling of the resident’s complaint at both stages, misunderstandings about the landlord’s repairing obligations, and not using the complaints process to resolve issues, this Service has found maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was:
1. No maladministration in the landlord’s handing of a request to refurbish the resident’s bathroom.
2. Service failure in the landlord’s handling of requests for repairs.
3. Maladministration in the landlord’s complaints handling.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

Within 4 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord must:
1. Pay £100 to the resident as compensation for its failure to effectively handle requests for repairs.
2. Pay £150 to the resident as compensation for the landlord’s failures in handling the resident’s complaint.
3. Instruct an expert who is appropriately qualified to carry out a survey of the resident’s property and to prepare a report that covers the following:
  1. Whether there are any defects in the resident’s bathroom.
  2. Whether any defects found in the bathroom have caused damage to other parts of the property.
  3. The cause of the defects.
  4. A schedule of works.
4. A copy of the expert’s report must be provided to this Service and to the resident. The landlord must also commit to a timescale to carry out any works identified in the report and share this information with this Service and the resident.
Within 8 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord must:
1. Share this report and its findings with the complaints team.
2. Ensure there is an effective ongoing liaison between the complaints and repairs teams, allowing the complaints team to directly raise any repair related concerns.
3. Ensure that all complaints handling staff understand the Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles and how to apply them to complaints.
4. Prepare a report on what it has learnt from this case and an action plan to address its findings. A copy of this report must be shared with this Service.

Recommendations

The landlord should review its current complaints policy and revise the Stage 1 complaint response timescales to be line with the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code.
The landlord should review its repairs policy and clarify points about resident’s obligations to carry out repairs to sealant around sinks.