London Borough of Enfield (202200374)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202200374

London Borough of Enfield

22 December 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

The complaint is about:
1. The landlord’s response to the residents reports of a leak in the bathroom and its handling of the associated repairs.
2. How the landlord dealt with repairs to the internal kitchen fire door.
3. The landlord’s response to outstanding repairs to the front door.
4. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

Background

The resident lives in a two bedroom ground floor maisonette. The property is in a four level block which was built in 1966. The resident is a tenant of the landlord and the tenancy began on 19 May 1986.
The landlord states it had no listed vulnerabilities for the resident. The landlord has confirmed that the resident has stated to it that she is registered disabled.
The landlord’s repairs policy states it classes repairs as:
1. Critical – to be completed in under four hours.
2. Emergency – to be completed within 24 hours.
3. Urgent – to be completed within five days.
4. Routine – to be completed within 30 calendar days.
5. Planned works – to be completed within 90 days.
Section 3.2 of the landlord’s complaint policy states it would normally only accept complaints made within 12 months of the incident or circumstances that led to it.
Section 6.3 of the landlord’s complaint policy states complaints will be acknowledged within 3 working days and should be resolved within 10 working days. For complex cases, the maximum timescale may be extended to 20 working days.
Section 6.8 of the landlord’s complaint policy states the final review will be acknowledged within five working days and the response issued within 30 working days. It is noted however that the landlord’s website states the final review response time to be up to 20 working days.
Section 8.0 of the landlord’s compensation policy states it will pay compensation if a resident has suffered distress, frustration or anxiety regarding a service failure over a considerable period. Each individual case should be assessed based on the length of time the service failure was not addressed, the severity of the impact and the vulnerability of the resident.
Section 10.0 of the landlord’s compensation policy states compensation will only be applicable for failure to repair when it has failed to complete any repairs in accordance with its published repairs policy and the cause of the delay was the sole fault of the landlord.
Section 12.0 of the landlord’s compensation policy states where a habitable room or property is assessed to be uninhabitable due to damage or condition, the resident will be paid compensation. If only partial loss of the room is experienced, the percentage of compensation will be adjusted accordingly.
Appendix A of the landlord’s compensation policy states if there is loss of use of a bathroom (where no alternative provision is available), 25% of the weekly rent is payable after 48 hours of loss.

Summary of events

On 27 February 2020 the landlord raised a repair order to repair the resident’s front door after she reported that it had dropped. The landlord’s records stated that the repair was completed the following day.
The resident reported to the landlord on 19 March 2020 that the door had dropped again. The landlord’s operative attended the next day and concluded nothing could be done as no gaps could be found.
On 13 August 2020 the landlord’s records show it requested for a surveyor to look at the front door as a new one may have been required as the current door could not be repaired.
On 7 December 2021 the landlord raised a repair order for the resident’s kitchen fire door to be rehung. The repair order stated the door was coming off the hinges and a new handle was required.
On the same day the resident reported a leak through the light fitting in the ceiling of her bathroom. The landlord’s contractor attended the same day under an emergency appointment to make the light fitting safe. The landlord’s records show the contractor who attended stated the leak was coming from a washing machine in the flat above and that it had been repaired.
On 14 December 2021 the landlord’s operative attended the resident’s property to hang the kitchen fire door. The operative informed the resident the door was not the original door, was too small to be rehung, the hinges were on the opposite side and a new door would be needed.
On 9 January 2022 the resident reported a leak coming through the light fitting in the ceiling of her bathroom. The landlord’s contractor attended the same day under an emergency appointment to make the light fitting safe. The contractor inspected the property above the resident’s and informed her the leak looked to be coming from the roof of the building and finding its way into the resident’s property. The landlord’s contractor told the resident to report the issue to the landlord the next day.
On 8 February 2022 the resident requested the landlord contact her as the new kitchen fire door had not yet been rehung.
The landlord’s operative attended on 18 February 2022 to rehang the kitchen door. On attendance, the operative told the resident the appointment was ‘kitchen door rehung coming off hinges new handle requested’. The contractor made a call to the landlord and established that as it was a fire door, the job would require a specialist contractor to complete the works.
On 21 February 2022 the landlord’s records show no action had been taken following the request in August 2020 for a surveyor inspect the front door of the property and a new works order was raised for a surveyor to inspect the door.
On the 21 February 2022 the resident called the landlord to chase the repairs to kitchen door. The resident was told there were no reports made or follow up actions booked in relation to the hanging of the kitchen door.
On 21 February 2022 the resident made a complaint to the landlord about the fire door in her kitchen. The resident said:
1. The fire door was removed in 2014 when new bathrooms and kitchens were fitted in Council properties and she was told that it would be put back in and rehung. During a visit from the landlord early in December 2021 (for the ongoing issue with her bathroom), the landlord’s operative arranged an appointment for 14 December 2021 for the kitchen door to be rehung.
2. During the appointment, she had informed him it was the only door she had been given and had been there throughout the previous years. The operative informed the resident it would require a specialist and that the landlord would be in touch with a new appointment for a new door to be hung.
3. After not hearing from the landlord, she messaged it on 8 February 2022 to inform it the door had not been rehung.
4. She had received a text notifying her an operative would be attending her property on 18 February 2022. The text provided a job reference number but it did not specify why the operative was attending.
5. When the operative attended, the resident asked what the job was for and was told for a kitchen door to be rehung as it was coming off the hinges and a new handle was requested. A new door was not mentioned.
6. After a further call to the landlord, the resident was once again told it was a specialist job and someone would call her.
On 22 February 2022 the resident made a complaint to the landlord about a leak coming from her bathroom light fitting and parts of the bathroom ceiling. The resident stated:
1. On 9 January 2022 there was a water leak from the bathroom light fitting and ceiling which she reported to the landlord via an emergency call. It attended the property and made safe the light fitting by removing it.
2. The landlord’s operative went to the property above and found no water damage but did find water leaking down the wall in the corridor and balcony area upstairs. She was told the leak was coming from the roof and finding its way into her property. She was told the operative would make a full report and told to report the issue again the following day, which she did.
3. An operative called at her property unannounced a few weeks later. The operative informed the resident he had an emergency call out to look at a leak in her property but then said the emergency was from 9 January 2022 and could not understand why it had taken someone so long to visit the property. The operative was told by the resident about the leak coming from the roof and he said he would inspect that area.
4. She had not heard from the landlord since then, had no lighting in the bathroom since 9 January 2022 and water was leaking through different parts of the ceiling on and off. After calling the landlord on 21 February 2022, she was told there was no follow up or any further action made regarding the reported issue.
5. The resident requested for a surveyor to attend the property. She was told a request had been made and a surveyor would call her.
On 23 February 2022 the landlord acknowledged the resident’s complaint and informed her a response would be issued within 20 working days.
The landlord requested a quote from its contractor to install a fire door on 16 March 2022.
The landlord’s contractor provided a quote to the landlord on 22 March 2022. The landlord approved the quote the next day and requested from the contractor a timeframe for the door to be fitted.
The landlord’s records show that on 23 March 2022, it established an operative attended the resident’s property on 14 December 2021 and confirmed a new fire door was required. Rather than allocating the work to a specialist contractor, nothing was done, and the same operative was rebooked to go to the resident’s property in February 2022.
The landlord issued its stage one response on 23 March 2022. The landlord stated:
1. After major internal works were completed in 2014, the kitchen fire door was removed and not rehung. Following an unrelated visit to the resident’s property on 7 December 2021, it noted the door was missing and arranged for it to be rehung. An appointment was scheduled for 14 December 2021.
2. At the appointment, the landlord’s operative stated the door was too small for the opening and could not be rehung and informed the resident a contractor would be commissioned to provide and install a new fire door. The resident then did not hear from it until February 2022, when an appointment was made for 18 February 2022. However, instead of the contractor attending, it was the same operative who attended in December 2021 who restated the previous findings.
3. It had reviewed its records and confirmed a works order should have been raised to attend the resident’s property to inspect, supply and fit a new fire door. Due to an administrative error, the appointment was not actioned and that had been escalated to the relevant service so lessons could be learnt.
4. Following receipt of the complaint, a works order was raised, a quote had been received and approved. The new door was made to measure and there was an 8-10 week lead time. The resident would be contacted directly by the contractor once the door was ready for an installation date.
5. The landlord apologised for the delays.
On 4 April 2022 the resident responded to the landlord and stated:
1. The landlord had not addressed matters to her satisfaction and she was unhappy with the initial complaint process.
2. The points she was unhappy with were:
  1. Bathroom ceiling leaking.
  2. Bathroom light fixture still disconnected due to leak.
  3. Failure to contact her.
  4. Issues ongoing after all those months.
  5. Failure to resolve pressing matters within given time frame.
3. She wished for all works to be completed within five working days, dealing with competent professionals only.
4. She required all correspondence by email.
5. She required compensation for mental and physical anguish plus compensation for damages to recent decor undertaken in the bathroom.
The landlord acknowledged the escalation request on 4 April 2022. The landlord informed the resident the response would be issued by 26 April 2022.
On 25 April 2022 the landlord issued its stage two response – referred to as the final stage response. The landlord stated:
1. The stage one response addressed the resident’s concerns regarding the delays to the fire door and what led to the delays.
2. The leak to the bathroom was reported on 7 December 2021 which was attended the same day as an emergency repair. The leak was identified as coming from a washing machine in an above property which was repaired and no further leak identified.
3. The leak was reported again on 9 January 2022 and the report noted the resident suspected a roof leak. An out of hours report was received on 11 January 2022 which stated the leak was coming through the light fitting in the bathroom of the property from the flat above.
4. The report stated that the resident was registered disabled but did not state whether she or the neighbour above had a disability. Its records did not show that the resident had any health conditions or disability.
5. The works were referred to its sub contractor who on 17 January 2022 tried to contact the resident to confirm an appointment but could not get through to her. An appointment was made for 26 January 2022.
6. At the appointment, the landlord’s engineer stated the flat roof outlet was blocked causing water to pool, so unblocked it. The downpipe was disconnected and was reconnected. The flat roof was sealed.
7. A quote for the roof was raised on 26 January 2022, approved on 4 February 2022 and the roof works were completed on 9 February 2022.
8. It had arranged for a supervisor to inspect the property following the resident’s reports that the leak was causing further damage and that was arranged for 5 May 2022.
9. The report regarding the front door of the property was made on 27 February 2020 which was at the start of the COVID-19 pandemic. The front door was inspected by its surveyor who stated a new door was required on 6 October 2020 as it could not be repaired. It had raised the works on 21 February 2021 and an appointment was planned for 29 April 2022.
10. The first stage complaint was completed in time and to a good standard.
11. There had been extended delays due to Covid-19 pandemic restrictions, which were in place until May 2021, when the landlord could only carry out emergency repairs.
12. The front door (as a routine order) would normally be completed within 90 days but it had been unable to fulfil that.
13. In conclusion:
  1. Since May 2021, the front fire door and front door had not been replaced but works were planned.
  2. The roof which was causing the leak was repaired on 9 February 2022.
  3. It had arranged an appointment for 29 April 2022 for the front door.
  4. It would follow up with its contractor for an appointment date for the fire door.
  5. An appointment had been arranged for its contractor to attend the property to address the disconnected lighting in the bathroom on 5 May 2022.
  6. It requested for a repairs supervisor to attend to inspect the property as the resident had stated there were damages.
14. It offered the resident £300 compensation for delays of over 12 months.

Post complaint

On 27 July 2022 the resident informed this Service that nothing had been done regarding the ongoing leak in the bathroom or the front door. The resident said the kitchen fire door had been replaced but she was having issues which the landlord said in June 2022 would be rectified but nothing had been done.
The landlord’s records show that on 1 August 2022 it had visited the resident’s property and had completed works on the roof but needed a plumber to rip off the boxing where the soil pipes ran inside to investigate sewage leaks into the property which was making it “unliveable”.
On 8 August 2022 the landlord provided an update to this Service. The landlord stated:
1. The resident had mentioned being registered disabled which was not recorded on its systems and it would arrange for its records to be updated. The resident would need to provide it with medical information for it to update its records.
2. It attended the resident’s first report of a leak in the bathroom on 7 December 2021 and established the cause was a washing machine leak.
3. It attended the resident’s second report of a leak from 9 January 2022 and established the leak was from the roof and the roof was resealed.
4. On 20 June 2022 a works order was raised to trace a leak into the resident’s bathroom. It established the leak was causing the bathroom to fill with waste. More work was completed to the roof and a plumber requested to inspect the soil pipes and investigate the sewage leaks into the property. It had tried to call the resident on 8 August 2022 but was unable to make contact. It would follow this up with the resident.
5. The front door was installed on 29 April 2022 but was not installed satisfactorily and an appointment was made for 10 August 2022 for the door to be realigned.
6. The kitchen door was installed on 28 May 2022 but it was identified the door was not closing properly which was unsatisfactory as it was a fire door. It arrange for the door to be adjusted on 10 August 2022.
7. It had revised its offer of compensation to £1,136.50. This consisted of:
  1. £500 (including the £300 previously offered for over 12 months delay) due to the additional six months’ delay to resolve the bathroom leak.
  2. £250 as the bathroom leak was still not resolved.
  3. £286.50 for the partial loss of the bathroom.
  4. £100 for delays in completing the door repairs.
On 27 December 2022 the resident informed this Service that the bathroom leak was still unresolved.
On 12 June 2023 the resident informed this Service that she had contacted the landlord by phone on 12 December 2022 and 13 December 2022 and informed it tiles in her bathroom were falling off, some of which had hit her and it was a health and safety matter. The resident said the landlord had told her it was not a health and safety matter and the tiles were not made safe until January 2023.
The resident also stated that since her initial report in January 2022, there had been a deterioration in the bathroom including:
1. Having to empty buckets and sanitise it daily.
2. Sewage flies were in the bathroom which became worse in warm weather.
3. She was unable to bath due to the condition of the bathroom.
4. Dirty drain water was leaking in several areas and was also affecting the kitchen downstairs.
On 19 June 2023 the resident informed this Service that she had contacted the landlord due to more tiles falling down in the bathroom and was told that it was not a health and safety issue and it would contact her to arrange an appointment. The resident stated the amount of drain flies had increased in both the kitchen and the bathroom.
The landlord attended the resident’s property on 4 September 2023 due to water flooding into the kitchen from the bathroom.
On 22 September 2023 the landlord wrote to the resident stating works discussed on site were raised but had been raised on the wrong priority and it had chased those works. The landlord requested the resident provide dates when it could visit to organise a scope of works and progress the repairs.
The resident responded on 25 September 2023 and asked why she had had a vast amount of supervisors, contractors, surveyors and roofers to visit the property during the previous 20 months but no repairs had been carried out and another visit was now required. She requested all works were completed no later than 29 September 2023.
Subsequently, a works order was raised by the landlord to investigate the leak and repair and make good the bathroom and kitchen on 28 September 2023.
The resident informed this service on 20 November 2023 that the bathroom works were still outstanding. The landlord has also confirmed the works were outstanding.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of a leak in the bathroom and its handling of the associated repairs.

The landlord’s records are clear that the resident initially reported the leak in her bathroom ceiling in December 2021 and further reports were made from January 2022.
From the evidence provided, the resident first reported the leak in the bathroom on 7 December 2021. It is not disputed the landlord initially attended quickly on the same day and felt the leak had been resolved. However the resident continued to report from January 2022 not only that the leak was still present but was causing more damage to her bathroom and was getting progressively worse.
The landlord has evidenced it completed repairs to the roof of the building in January 2022 and February 2022 but this did not resolve the issue. There is no evidence any further works were attempted until May 2022 and June 2022 when further inspections took place but failed to resolve the issue.
The landlord’s records show it attended the resident’s property on 20 June 2022 and follow on works were requested to investigate and remedy the continuous leak into the bathroom. The landlord’s records show one of its engineers noted on 23 June 2022 that the bathroom was leaking waste and was “unliveable”. There is no evidence that the landlord acted on those findings or considered the health effects it may have had on the resident. The landlord’s records do not show that it took any further action to either investigate or remedy the leak until it reviewed the case on 1 August 2022 and enquired if those works had been completed as it could not see that a plumber had been asked to attend or that works had been raised or carried out on the soil pipes. The works were then raised by the landlord on 1 August 2022 – a delay of 40 days.
It is also noted that the landlord booked these works after being contacted by this Service for an update on the status of the leak and were not raised pro-actively as part of its own processes.
The landlord’s records show the works to the bathroom raised in June 2022 and August 2022 were both logged as an appointment and target dates of 90 days were set. With the landlord establishing there was sewage leaking into the property, it is not clear why the landlord felt an appointment with a target date of 90 days was acceptable, especially given that the landlord was aware the resident may also have a disability. Sewage leaks can have effects on a resident’s health and would be expected to be investigated as a matter of urgency.
At the time of this investigation, both the landlord and the resident have stated the bathroom works are still outstanding, two years from first being reported. The evidence provided has shown that the leak in the resident’s bathroom has not been suitably investigated and repaired. This has led to a deterioration in the bathroom over this period, including a leak containing sewage, sewage files entering the property, tiles falling off the walls, plaster coming off the ceiling, no lighting in the bathroom and leaks entering the kitchen.
This is severe maladministration by the landlord. It failed to comprehensively investigate the leak in the bathroom, did not log further appointments to investigate at the required time and has not evidenced any works being completed in the bathroom since January 2022 nor provided a remedy to the situation. This has left the resident with a bathroom she did not feel safe using due to the risk of tiles falling and the water leak containing sewage.
The landlord offered the resident compensation totalling £1,036.50 in August 2022 for the delays in resolving the leak, the partial loss of the bathroom and the leak still being outstanding. There is no evidence any further offer of compensation was made to the resident.
It is the view of this Service that the landlord’s offer of compensation does not provide proportionate redress for the significant detriment suffered by the resident for a prolonged period of time. This Service has therefore made an award of compensation taking into account the circumstances of the resident’s complaint, the resident’s rental liability, the landlord’s compensation policy and this Service’s Remedies Guidance.
In relation to the repairs to the bathroom leak and subsequent damage, the resident’s rent was £114.56 per week. The landlord’s compensation policy states it would pay compensation of 25% of the resident’s weekly rent (£114.56) for loss of amenities in a habitable room.
1. The landlord should pay the resident 25% of the rental amount as stated in appendix A of its compensation policy for the period that the repair has remained outstanding following her formal complaint.
2. At the date of this report, this amounts to 101 weeks. Therefore, the compensation for the delayed repairs to the bathroom stands at £2,892.64. This is to include the compensation already offered to the resident.
This Service has also made an additional order for compensation of £500 to address the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident.
Given that the resident has reported that there are still repair issues outstanding, this Service has included an order to address this in the determination set out below.

How the landlord dealt with repairs to the internal kitchen fire door.

The kitchen door had been off its hinges since 2014. This Service cannot consider the period from 2014 as this was not brought to the attention of the landlord at that time. This Service can however consider the landlord’s response since it noted the missing door during a visit to the resident’s property on 7 December 2021 and the subsequent complaint made from the resident.
The kitchen fire door was noted to be needed to be rehung during a visit to the resident’s property on 7 December 2021 by an operative of the landlord.
The evidence provided shows an operative of the landlord attended the resident’s property on 14 December 2021 and concluded the door was too small to be rehung. The landlord rightly stated it would arrange for a contractor to measure for a new fire door and for it to be fitted.
This however did not take place as the landlord failed to raise an order for the works to be completed. Once the landlord was contacted by the resident in February 2022, it sent the same operative who had attended in December 2021. It is not clear why the landlord chose to do this considering a check of its records should have identified this survey had already been completed and the work required. This indicates poor record keeping by the landlord. A recommendation for the landlord to review its record keeping is made at the end of this report. The landlord has also failed to supply its repairs log regarding the kitchen fire door for this Service to review as part of this investigation.
Once the door was measured, the landlord informed the resident a new door would take 8-10 weeks to be manufactured. The resident states the door was installed at the end of May 2022. Given the door was measured and ordered on 21 March 2022 and installed on 28 May 2022, this was consistent with the timescales provided by the landlord. However, there was an unnecessary delay of almost three months due to the landlord’s failure to log the required works and then sending an operative who had already visited the property and reported to the landlord that he was unable to carry out the work.
Following the installation of the door, the landlord has acknowledged the door was not fitted correctly and needed to be rehung. The landlord took a further 69 days to complete this work, with the final repair taking place on 10 August 2022. Considering a fire door is an importance safety feature in a property, the landlord took a disproportionally long time to complete this repair.
When the landlord established the planners had not allocated the work to a contractor in December 2021, it asked internally for this to be addressed with the planners concerned to learn lessons going forward. This was a positive step taken by the landlord as it recognised a failing and took some steps to avoid the same failure in the future.
However, the landlord’s initial error in logging and inspecting the fire door, the delays of 247 days in installation of the door, including the need for it to return to correct errors in fitting the door, amount to maladministration.
The landlord in its complaint response offered £100 for the delays in the door repairs. There were two door repairs considered in the complaint response and no breakdown provided by the landlord for the amount of compensation offered for each door. This Service will consider that the offer of £100 was based on 50% for each door meaning the landlord offered £50 for the delays to the kitchen fire door. This Service does not consider that amount to be appropriate and an award of £300 compensation should be paid to the resident for the delays in correctly installing the kitchen fire door.

The landlord’s response to outstanding repairs to the front door.

This Service has not seen the initial complaint raised by the resident regarding the front door from the evidence provided by the landlord. It is not clear therefore when the resident made her complaint to the landlord. The landlord did not address the front door in its stage one complaint response but did so in its stage two response and in its review of the complaint it issued in August 2022.
The landlord provided very little evidence of the repairs raised regarding the front door and this investigation instead had to rely on the correspondence between the landlord and resident.
The resident initially reported the front door fault to the landlord on 27 February 2020. The landlord stated this was at the start of the COVID-19 pandemic but at this date there were no restrictions due to COVID-19 in place and this was almost one month before the introduction of the first national lockdown. Although it is acknowledged that the introduction of the first national lockdown would have impacted the landlord’s ability to initially carry out repairs, there is no evidence of what the landlord had scheduled to take place at the time the door was initially reported to it.
From the evidence provided, the landlord’s surveyor stated a new door was required on 6 October 2020 following an inspection. This was seven months after the door was first reported to the landlord. Given the COVID-19 restrictions in place following the first national lockdown, it was reasonable that there would have been some delay to the landlord carrying out repairs.
However, following the inspection in October 2020, works were not raised by the landlord until 21 February 2021 – a delay of 139 days. No explanation was provided by the landlord for this delay or why there was a further delay until 29 April 2022 for the new door to be installed. Following the installation, the landlord concluded the door had not been installed satisfactorily and an appointment was made for 10 August 2022 for this to be corrected.
As previously stated, this Service has assumed the offer of compensation of £100 made by the landlord to be 50% for each door delay. This meant the landlord offered £50 for the delay in repairing the front door. The resident has stated to this Service the gaps in the front door frame caused an increase in her heating bills during this period. This Service is unable to verify the extent of any impact any gaps in the door would have had on heating bills but we have considered the distress and inconvenience the delays caused the resident.
This was the front door of the property and therefore an important security feature. The landlord was aware it needed to be replaced from 6 October 2020 and completed the works on 10 August 2022. This was a significant delay of 674 days from when the landlord’s surveyor stated a new door was required and the door being correctly installed, including a delay of 104 days for the landlord to correctly align the door after it was installed. The award of £50 compensation offered by the landlord is not considered appropriate. An award of compensation of £400 should be paid to the resident, including the £50 previously offered.

The landlord handling of the resident’s complaint.

The resident made her complaint on 21 February 2022 and the landlord issued its stage one response on 23 March 2022. The response was issued after 23 working days which was outside the landlord’s complaint policy of 10 working days. The landlord’s complaint policy does state that for complex cases, it may take up to 20 working days to issue a response. The acknowledgement sent to the resident did state a response would be issued within a maximum of 20 working days. The response at stage one was therefore issued slightly late to the resident, which was not acknowledged by the landlord or any apology offered.
The resident made two separate complaints on 21 February 2022 and 22 February 2022. Given the two dates were so close together, it would have been reasonable for the landlord to issue a response to both complaints in the same stage one response. The stage one response however did not provide a response at all to the resident’s complaint about her bathroom. It is clear in her correspondence to the landlord on 22 February 2022 that she was making a formal complaint. There is no evidence the landlord provided a stage one response to the resident regarding her bathroom.
At stage two, the landlord did provide a response regarding the bathroom and a further response to the complaint regarding the kitchen fire door. The landlord at this stage also issued a response regarding the resident’s front door.
As part of the stage two response, the landlord noted in January 2022 when it received an out of hours report regarding the bathroom, the report stated that the resident was registered disabled. The report did not state whether her or the resident above had a disability and it’s records did not show that the resident had any health conditions or disability. The landlord in the stage two response however did not ask the resident to provide any further update to it so it could record any disability the resident had or for it to consider while it was responding to the outstanding issues. This is also concerning as at the time of the response the landlord stated for all three complaint points further works were required.
It is also of concern that this was recorded in the landlord records in January 2022 and the complaint response was issued in April 2022 – a gap of four months where the landlord had the opportunity to enquire if the resident had a disability and record it appropriately. In a further update to this Service in August 2022, the landlord again acknowledged the resident may have a disability but this was not registered on its systems. The landlord said it would arrange for its records to be updated but the resident would need to provide it with medical information for it to do so. There is no evidence provided by the landlord of what steps it took to establish any disabilities of the resident.
The lack of a response at stage one for the residents complaint about her bathroom, the incorrect date stated on the stage one response about the date the complaint was made and the failure in the complaint response to follow up the landlords acknowledgement the resident may have a disability is maladministration by the landlord. An award of £150 compensation should be paid to the resident.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was severe maladministration in the landlord’s response to reports of a leak in the bathroom and its handling of the associated repairs.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in how the landlord dealt with repairs to the internal kitchen fire door.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s response to outstanding repairs to the front door.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

Reasons

The bathroom repairs have been outstanding for a total period of almost two years and are yet to be resolved. The resident has reported the conditions of the bathroom were deteriorating but the landlord has not evidenced it took sufficient action to remedy the reported issues, has not demonstrated any learning, has made a comment about the bathroom being unliveable and the leak has extended to the kitchen during this time. The compensation offered was insufficient given the circumstances of the case.
It took the landlord a total of 247 days to complete the installation of the kitchen fire door. During this time, the landlord failed to log the correct works, sent the wrong operatives to the resident’s property and did not complete the hanging of the door correctly, resulting in a further appointment to rectify.
It took the landlord a disproportionally long time to replace the front door. It is acknowledged that the initial national lockdowns due to COVID-19 would have impacted the landlord’s ability to remedy this fault. However, once the door was assessed as needing to be replaced, the landlord took 674 days to do so.
The landlord failed to issued a response at stage one to the resident’s complaint about the leak in her bathroom. It failed to take appropriate action after acknowledging in the stage two response that the resident may have a disability.

Orders

Within four weeks of the date of this report, the landlord is to inspect the resident’s bathroom and conduct a full survey to ascertain the cause of the leak and provide her with a comprehensive report stating how it will repair the leak, the associated damage to the bathroom and kitchen and the timescales for the repairs to be completed.
Within four weeks of the date of this report, the landlord is to pay the resident:
1. £3,392.64 (inclusive of the £1,036.50 already offered to the resident) in recognition of the loss of amenity and distress and inconvenience caused by the failures in its response to the resident’s reports of a leak in the bathroom and its handling of the associated repairs.
2. £300 (inclusive of the £50 already offered to the resident) in recognition of the inconvenience caused by the failures in its handling of repairs to the internal kitchen fire door.
3. £400 (inclusive of the £50 already offered to the resident) in recognition of the inconvenience caused by the failures in its handling of repairs to the front door.
4. £150 for the failures identified in its handling of the complaint.
Within four weeks of the date of this report, the landlord is to write to the resident and apologise for the failings identified in the report.
If the landlord has not done so already, the resident is to be contacted within two weeks to confirm if she has any disabilities or requires any reasonable adjustment. If so, those are to be recorded on the landlord’s systems and any works to be completed should take into account any impact on the resident.
The landlord should reply to this Service to provide evidence of compliance with these orders.

Recommendations

The landlord is to review is repairs process to ensure repairs are logged at the correct time and systems are in place to monitor the status of those repairs.
The landlord reviews this Service’s Knowledge and Information Management spotlight report and self-assesses against its record keeping processes.
The landlord reviews its process regarding being notified of potential disabilities in a household including how they are established and recorded on residents’ records.