London Borough of Ealing (202341193)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202341193

London Borough of Ealing

3 May 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 complaint is about the landlord’s handling of:
1. Reports of a leak in the resident’s bathroom.
2. The associated complaint.

Background

The resident has a secure tenancy with the landlord which began on 26 December 2011. The landlord is a local authority. The landlord said it has no vulnerabilities recorded for the resident. The resident resides at the property with young children.
The resident said she first reported a leak in her bathroom in February 2023.
On 4 November 2023, the resident made a complaint to the landlord in which she said:
1. She had reported an emergency leak in her bathroom in September 2023. The resident said there was a crack in the hand wash basin and the pipework.
2. The landlord had told her it would install a new hand wash basin and taps.
3. A contractor attended the property on 18 October 2023. The resident said the contractor left without replacing the hand wash basin or the taps. The resident asked the landlord for an explanation as to why this happened.
4. The hand wash basin was still leaking. The resident said the leak had damaged her bathroom flooring. The resident asked the landlord to complete repairs to the hand wash basin and replace her flooring.
On 13 December 2023, the landlord provided its stage 1 response in which it explained:
1. It had asked for a surveyor to contact the resident and arrange a visit to inspect the hand wash basin.
2. On 18 October 2023, a contractor resealed the area around the basin pedestal with silicone. However, the landlord said the contractor could not find a leak on the hand wash basin.
3. It had no record of damage to the resident’s flooring. The landlord said the resident would need to contact her own home insurance.
4. It was sorry for the length of time it had taken to resolve the leak.
On 9 January 2024, the resident escalated her complaint. In her escalation request the resident said:
1. She was unhappy with the landlord’s response about the bathroom flooring. The resident said the damage was not her fault.
2. She had reported the leak 6 times. The resident said she first reported the leak on 24 February 2023. The resident said that 5 plumbers had attended the property, but they had not completed the necessary works.
3. The landlord’s “repair portal” was inaccurate. The resident said she contacted the landlord on 1 January 2024 through its out–of–hours service. However, the landlord had not updated the portal until 8 January 2024.
4. She was unhappy that an operative had attended the property without identification.
On 7 March 2024, the landlord provided its stage 2 response in which it explained:
1. There had been several attempts to resolve the leak since 24 February 2023.
2. It would arrange for a surveyor to attend the property and inspect the leak.
3. It had discussed the resident’s concerns about the conduct of its contractors and apologised for any distress or inconvenience caused.
4. It had offered the resident £250 compensation for the delay in repairing the leak in the resident’s bathroom.
In referring her complaint to the Ombudsman, the resident said:
1. She is unable to use the cold-water tap, as it leaks.
2. She wants the landlord to resolve the leak.
3. She wants the landlord to replace the flooring in her bathroom.

Assessment and findings

Scope of the investigation

The resident said that she was unhappy with the conduct of the landlord’s contractors. It is outside the Ombudsman’s role to consider or comment on how a landlord should deal with identified service failings by the individual members of staff involved, in terms of any disciplinary proceedings or employment matters.
When investigating a complaint about a landlord, the Ombudsman will consider the response of the landlord as a whole and will only comment on the actions of individuals in so far as they are acting on behalf of the landlord. Therefore, if the actions of an individual member of staff give rise to a failure in service, the Ombudsman’s determination and any associated orders and recommendations would be made against the landlord rather than the individual.

Record keeping

The Ombudsman expects landlords to maintain a robust record of contacts and repairs. This is because clear, accurate, and easily accessible records provide an audit trail and enhance landlords’ ability to identify and respond to problems when they arise.
It is the Ombudsman’s opinion that the landlord has failed to maintain adequate records. For example, the landlord said it has no record of a leak in the property in February 2023. However, the landlord acknowledged in its stage 2 response that the issue had been ongoing since 24 February 2023.
The landlord’s record-keeping has impacted this service’s ability to carry out a thorough investigation, as highlighted at various points throughout this report. This was a failure by the landlord and contributed to the other failures identified in this report.
It is best practice for landlords to appropriately record information including any reports of repairs, agreed actions or further issues raised by the resident. The failure to create and record information accurately can result in landlords not taking appropriate and timely action, missing opportunities to identify that actions were wrong or inadequate, and contributing to inadequate communication and redress.

The landlord’s handling of reports of a leak in the resident’s bathroom

The landlord’s “repairs handbook” (the handbook) states it will respond to emergency repairs within 1 working day, unless there is serious damage to the property, or risk to life, in which case it will respond within 4 hours. The landlord said it will attend all other repairs within the “next available appointment time” or within 28 days. The handbook states that the landlord will complete repairs to a bath, toilet or wash basin within 15 days. The handbook also states that the landlord will repair major leaks, burst pipes or total or partial loss of cold-water supply within 4 hours and minor leaks within 15 days.
The resident said she first reported a leak in her bathroom on 24 February 2023. The landlord said it has no record of a leak in the property in February 2023. However, the landlord acknowledged in its stage 2 response that the issue had been ongoing since 24 February 2023. It is unclear if the landlord responded to the resident’s initial report on 24 February 2023, or if it carried out an inspection of the property.
In her complaint, the resident said she reported a leak in the bathroom in September 2023. However, there is no record of this leak in the landlord’s repair records. The landlord has provided a repair record dated 4 October 2023. It is therefore unclear if the landlord failed to record the resident’s report of a leak in September 2023, or if this was a typographical error in the resident’s complaint. The Ombudsman has been unable to confirm this with the resident.
The landlord has provided 7 repair records dated 4 October 2023 to 5 March 2024. It is unclear whether the repairs were categorised as routine or emergency repairs. It is also unclear if some of the repair records were new repairs, or follow-on works from previous attendances at the property. For ease of reference, the Ombudsman has numbered the repairs as follows:
1. Leak from the resident’s hand wash basin, recorded on 4 October 2023 (leak 1). The landlord’s records said it completed/attended the repair on 18 October 2023.
2. Leak from the resident’s hand wash basin, recorded on 5 October 2023 (leak 2). The landlord’s records said it completed/attended the repair on 27 October 2023.
3. Leak in the resident’s bathroom, recorded on 24 October 2023 (leak 3). The landlord’s records said it completed/attended the repair on the same day.
4. Leak from the resident’s hand wash basin, recorded on 27 October 2023 (leak 4). The landlord’s records said it completed/attended the repair on 24 November 2023.
5. Leak from a waste pipe in the resident’s bathroom, recorded on 8 November 2023 (leak 5). The landlord noted the repair as “urgent”. The landlord’s records said it completed/attended the property on 24 November 2023.
6. Leak from the resident’s hand wash basin, recorded through the landlord’s out-of-hours service on 1 January 2024 (leak 6). It appears that the landlord attended the property on the same day, but it recorded further works on 8 January 2024.
7. Leak in the resident’s bathroom, recorded on 5 March 2024 (leak 7). The landlord arranged an appointment for 4 April 2024.
There were delays in the landlord completing repairs in response to leak 2. However, the landlord’s notes suggest it had difficulties accessing the property and communicating with the resident. While this may have been the case, the landlord has not provided any correspondence with the resident to suggest it exhausted all reasonable communication methods.
When the landlord recorded leak 4, it did not “complete” a repair until 24 November 2023. This was 28 days after the landlord recorded the repair, despite the response time set out in the handbook which states the landlord will complete repairs to a wash basin within 15 days. The delay was therefore not appropriate. The landlord said its operative could not find any issues with the basin when it attended.
When the landlord recorded leak 5, it did not “complete” the repair until 24 November 2023. This was 16 days after the resident reported the leak, despite the landlord categorising the repair as “urgent”. This was not appropriate.
On 13 December 2023, the landlord said it would contact its surveyor to arrange an inspection of the property. It appears that the landlord did not contact the resident about the inspection until 5 March 2024. The landlord has not provided any explanation as to why it did not contact the resident until March 2024 to arrange an inspection. This was a failure in the landlord’s service to the resident.
The Ombudsman understands that the leak in the resident’s bathroom is ongoing. While the landlord carried out some repairs to the resident’s bathroom, the evidence suggests that the repairs were unsuccessful as the resident reported further leaks throughout 2023 and more recently in March 2024.
Throughout the complaint, the resident had to chase for updates on repairs. There is an expectation that the landlord keeps in communication with the resident and updates them on the progress of the repairs. In addition, there was a lack of information following the inspections to determine what works were required. The landlord should ensure it records details of any attendances at the property such as an attendance note detailing any issues discussed or resolved with the resident. The landlord should ensure it appropriately records any agreed actions or concerns so that these can be actioned promptly.
In her escalation request, the resident raised a complaint about the landlord’s operative and that they attended without any identification. In its stage 2 response, the landlord said it had discussed the matter with its contractor and provided the resident with an explanation as to why the operative did not have identification. The landlord also said its repairs lead had reminded the contractor of the importance of good customer service and practices. The response from the landlord was reasonable. It investigated the resident’s concerns and provided her with an explanation and a resolution to the issue.
The resident said that the landlord agreed to replace the hand wash basin and the taps. There is no evidence to confirm whether the landlord advised the resident that it would replace the hand wash basin and taps. However, in the landlord’s stage 1 response it said it had asked its surveyor to contact the resident and arrange an inspection of the bathroom.
While the landlord advised the resident to go through her own insurance regarding the damage to her flooring, it did not refer to its own insurance. The Ombudsman is unable to comment on the outcome of any insurance claim as it can only consider the actions of the landlord. It would therefore be reasonable for the landlord to assess the resident’s reports of damage in accordance with its discretionary compensation policy to establish whether it should contribute towards the cost of her personal belongings, or whether this is being considered by its insurer.
It appears that there are outstanding issues in the resident’s bathroom. The resident said she is unable to use the cold water tap on the hand wash basin. The Ombudsman understands that the landlord offered an inspection of the property on 4 April 2024, but the resident asked the landlord to rearrange the appointment. The Ombudsman has therefore made an order for the landlord to contact the resident and carry out an inspection of the property to identify and complete any outstanding repairs.
While the landlord has offered some compensation to the resident, the compensation does not reflect the failings identified. In summary, the landlord was at fault because:
1. It failed to maintain regular communication with the resident.
2. It failed to appropriately record the resident’s report of a leak in February 2023.
3. There were delays in it completing repair works to the resident’s bathroom.
4. There were delays in it contacting the resident to arrange an inspection of the property.
5. It did not resolve the leak within a reasonable time and the leak is ongoing.

The landlord’s handling of the associated complaint

The landlord updated its complaints policy for landlord services in March 2024. The landlord’s current policy states it will issue a response to stage 1 complaints within 10 working days. However, the policy which was in effect at the time of the resident’s complaint stated that the landlord would respond to stage 1 and stage 2 complaints within 20 working days.
The resident made a complaint to the landlord on 4 November 2023. The landlord provided its stage 1 response on 13 December 2023. This was 27 working days after the resident’s complaint. This was 7 working days in excess of the landlord’s complaints policy. While the delay was not excessive, the landlord did not acknowledge the delay in its complaint response and did not inform the resident that there would be a delay. This was not appropriate.
The landlord’s failure to respond to the resident’s initial complaint in line with its complaint’s procedure, meant it missed an opportunity to address her concerns sooner and left the resident waiting for a resolution to her concerns. The landlord should have conducted a timely and appropriate investigation and response to the resident’s concerns.
The resident asked the landlord to escalate her complaint on 9 January 2024. The landlord provided its stage 2 response on 7 March 2024. This was 42 working days after the resident’s escalation request. This was 22 working days in excess of the landlord’s policy. The landlord apologised for the delay in its complaint response. However, it did not inform the resident that there would be a delay. This was not appropriate.
The landlord should have conducted a timely and appropriate investigation and response to the resident’s concerns. The delay in responding to the resident’s complaint would have delayed the resident in progressing the complaint through the landlord’s process. It would have also made her feel frustrated and that she was not being taken seriously and would have prevented her from exhausting the landlord’s internal complaints procedure so that she could bring the matter to the Ombudsman for an independent investigation.
In its complaint responses, the landlord acknowledged that there had been delays in completing the repair works. However, it did not provide an adequate explanation about why these delays had occurred, particularly the delays in its initial response to the resident’s reports.
Where something has gone wrong a landlord must acknowledge this and set out the actions it has already taken, or intends to take, to put things right. This was a missed opportunity for the landlord to resolve the resident’s complaint.
Overall, there were failings in the landlord’s complaint handling. While the landlord has apologised for the inconvenience caused, it failed to put matters right by addressing all the resident’s concerns at the earliest opportunity and taking steps to put things right. The Ombudsman has therefore ordered the landlord to pay compensation to the resident for the distress and inconvenience caused by the failures outlined above.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of reports of a leak in the resident’s bathroom.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the associated complaint.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

The landlord must, within 28 days of the date of this determination:
1. Provide a full apology for the errors identified in this report. The head of complaints or repairs must make the apology in writing after reviewing this report.
2. Pay compensation to the resident of £1,000 broken down as follows:
  1. £800 compensation to recognise the distress and inconvenience caused, as well as the loss of enjoyment of the resident’s home in the handling of repairs in the resident’s bathroom.
  2. £200 for the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident as a result of the landlord’s complaint handling failures.

The total compensation replaces the compensation offered by the landlord during the complaint procedure. The landlord can reduce the total compensation by any of the £250 already paid to the resident if applicable.

Contact the resident to discuss her report of damage to her personal belongings/flooring and establish whether it should contribute towards the costs incurred or whether this is being considered by its insurer.
Contact the resident to arrange a mutually convenient appointment for a full survey of the property to be carried out.
1. The landlord should attempt to complete the inspection within 28 days of the date of this determination.
2. The landlord should encourage its surveyor to provide their report within 10 working days of the date of the inspection.
3. The landlord must then use all best endeavours to ensure the work is completed within a reasonable time, in any event, 56 days of the date of the inspection, or by the dates set out in any report provided by the surveyor. The schedule of work and action plan must be shared with the resident and this service.

The landlord must, within 56 days of the date of this determination, provide evidence of compliance with the orders specified at paragraph 40. It must set out its proposed completion date for any outstanding works.