London Borough of Hackney (202128440)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202128440

Hackney Council

14 September 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:
   1. response to the resident’s reports that the property did not meet the landlord’s lettable standard when he moved in;
   2. complaints handling.

Background

2. The resident has been a secure tenant at the property of the landlord since 15 February 2021. The landlord is a local authority. The property is a flat.
3. The landlord issues all new tenants with its ‘lettable standards’ booklet. The booklet details the condition a property should be in when the tenant moves in, and encourages tenants to use the booklet to check that their home meets this standard.
4. On 16 February 2021, the resident emailed the landlord’s void property team and advised there was no hot water at the property. He further advised that the landlord’s call centre could not raise a repair as there was no valid tenancy for the property on its system.
5. The resident also noted there were outstanding repairs and that he did not consider the property to meet the standards set out in the lettable standards booklet. He noted a number of concerns, including the following:
   1. There was no electric ventilation in the bathroom.
   2. There is a gap between the top of the fire door and the doorframe to the kitchen.
   3. The kitchen tiles were cracked and had been painted over rather than being replaced.
   4. There is no carbon monoxide alarm despite the boiler being connected to gas.
6. On 19 April 2021 the resident raised a complaint saying he had received no response to his previous email. He advised that the property was not “brought up to the required standard for letting.” He reiterated there were “outstanding repairs yet to be carried out” that he had been unable to arrange as the call centre said his tenancy was not registered on the system. He further advised he suffered from “back trouble” and needed a “built in under oven housing with a continuous worktop with a hole for a hob” to cater for his disability. He concluded that he wanted an officer to take pictures of all outstanding works and have them completed as soon as possible.
7. In its stage one response on 6 June 2021, the landlord said it had arranged for a surveyor to inspect his property on 22 July 2021 to assess for any damages and outstanding repairs that may have been missed by the voids team. It also advised him to contact the Occupational Health Team to arrange an assessment for the continuous work top. The Occupational Health Team would then put their recommendations into a report and arrange for the relevant repairs/adaptations to be carried out.
8. Following the inspection on 22 July 2021, the surveyor reported that he resident had said there were no issues in the property (other than a blocked sink that the landlord had arranged an appointment for).
9. In his escalation request on 4 August 2021 the resident said the landlord had given the surveyor “instructions only to look out for cracks in the walls and leaks” when his issue was that the flat was not brought up to the letting standard, and that it had still not been brought up to the required standard for letting.
10. The resident contacted the landlord on 9 September 2021 as he had not received a stage two complaint response.
11. On 20 September 2021 the landlord said it had received his escalation request but had also been advised following the inspection that there were “no actions outstanding.” It asked him to clarify why he remained dissatisfied and the resolution he sought. The resident referred the landlord back to the reasons in his original escalation request.
12. On 1 November 2021 the landlord asked the resident what repairs were outstanding. He replied that “there are no repairs to be carried out per–se, the issue is that my flat had not been brought up to the letting standard when I moved in.” He reiterated that there were cracked tiles in the kitchen that had been painted over and the bathroom had not been completed to a decent standard. He said he wanted an explanation for why it had sent a surveyor who was looking for repairs/leaks when the issue was the property not being brought up to a decent letting standard.
13. On 18 November 2021 the landlord asked if any of the repairs he had reported on 18 February 2021 were still outstanding and the resident replied that only the cracked kitchen tiles were outstanding, along with the continuous work top he had requested. The landlord confirmed that the resident’s social worker had made a referral to its Occupational Health Team regarding the worktop and that it would get the team to provide the resident with an update.
14. In its stage two response on 24 November 2021, the landlord apologised that the resident had had to raise repairs issues immediately after moving into his property, that he had received no response to his emails to the voids team, and for the delays in carrying out the replacement of the kitchen tiles. It explained that the repair was not given priority for completion due to COVID–19 conditions at the time the report was made, and the fact that the replacement was for cosmetic reasons not healthy and safety. It awarded £50 compensation for the resident’s time and trouble and confirmed that an appointment had been made to replace the cracked tiles and also to re-tile around the bath on 8 December 2021. It confirmed that a referral had been made to its Occupation Health Team regarding the continuous worktop request, but as there was a waiting list it was unable to confirm when the assessment would be.
15. The landlord also explained that the instruction given to the surveyor were to “inspect property for all defects missed by the voids team” and not for a particular repair. And that the surveyor had reported they had “inspected the entire property with the resident and has claimed no issues to the flat….No further works needed following this physical inspection as advised to the resident and he also confirmed.”
16. The resident contacted this service in March 2022 as he said his property was not brought up to the letting standards when the tenancy commenced, and as they had still not carried out the repairs it did not yet meet the lettings standard. He said the kitchen and bathroom had not been brought up to a decent standard.

Assessment and findings

Response to the resident’s reports that the property did not meet the landlord’s lettable standard when he moved in

17. The landlord’s lettable standards booklet notes that “when you view the property there may be repairs that are outstanding, these will be completed before you move in.” Therefore, when the resident moved into the property on 15 February 2021, he had a reasonable expectation that all repairs should have already been completed.
18. The Ombudsman expects a landlord to carry out a reasonable investigation of any reports of repair concerns within a reasonable timeframe. What is reasonable will depend on the circumstances.
19. Following the resident’s reports in February 2021 that there were repair concerns, the landlord would be expected to begin a reasonable investigation of these concerns. While the request was received by the voids team and not the repairs team, there was a reasonable explanation for this (i.e. a repair could not be raised due to a system error). The Ombudsman would expect a landlord’s internal communication to be robust enough for a repair request to be forwarded to the relevant team in such circumstances. This was evidently not the case, however, causing the resident further time and trouble in chasing his concerns a second time.
20. Following the resident’s complaint, the landlord appropriately arranged for its surveyor to assess the resident’s concerns. Given, however, that the resident had expressed various concerns in his correspondence in February 2021, it would have been helpful for the landlord to have highlighted these to its surveyor so these could have been specifically investigated. Instead, the landlord instructed its surveyor to “inspect property for all defects missed by the voids team.“ While this may have identified additional issues, it also ran the risk of missing the issues raised by the resident. The landlord reported that the surveyor queried what issues were outstanding and that the resident reported that there were no issues. It is evident there was a miscommunication between the parties, and that it would have been helpful had the landlord arranged for its surveyor to provide a response on each issue raised by the resident. Its failure to do so led to the resident having to expend further time and trouble in escalating his complaint.
21. The Ombudsman also notes that the resident raised his concerns in February 2021, but that the surveyor did not attend until June 2021. Given that the resident reported concerns about various safety issues in the property, it would have been appropriate for the landlord to have clarified if any of the issues were urgent, however, it is not evident it did this.
22. The Ombudsman considers it reasonable for landlord’s to have limited their service to urgent repairs during periods of COVID-19 restrictions. It was therefore reasonable for the landlord to have noted in its stage two response that works the kitchen tiles would be delayed on this basis.
23. Given that the resident requested for a continuous workshop in relation to his specific needs, it was appropriate that the landlord signposted the resident to its Occupational Therapy Team. This is in line with best practice and what the Ombudsman would expect.
24. In summary, given that there were issues that should have been addressed by the voids team prior to the resident moving to the property, the delayed responses to the resident’s queries, the delays to inspections, and the shortcomings with those inspections, in the circumstances, the landlord’s response amounts to maladministration. The Ombudsman notes that the landlord has taken some steps to mitigate its failings by offering compensation of £50, based on this service’s remedies guidance, this compensation is not sufficient to accurately reflect the impact on the resident. Given the delays and the time and trouble expended by the resident in chasing responses, an amount of £150 compensation is ordered.
25. The resident has informed this service that there are still outstanding repairs required to bring the kitchen and bathroom up to a lettable standard but has not specified what these repairs are or whether the landlord completed the planned repairs to the kitchen and bathroom tiles in December 2021. Therefore, a recommendation has been made for the landlord to enquire with the resident as to whether there are any outstanding repairs, and provide an indicative timeframe to complete any such repairs.

Complaints Handling

26. The landlord operates a two stage complaints process. At stage one there is the option to either “get it sorted” by resolving the complaint informally within five working days, or “investigate it” for complaints that need a thorough investigation and a more detailed response. Its policy notes that “the investigation will usually take up to an average of 10 working days, where a complaint is complex and likely to take longer than 10 working days, we will inform you of the need for an extension as soon as we can, usually within five working days of logging the complaint. We will discuss the problem with you to understand what solution you are looking for. An appropriate officer from the service area will investigate the complaint fully. The service will reply to your complaint in writing within 10 working days or the amended timeframe we previously discussed with you.” If the resident is not satisfied with the stage one response they can escalate the complaint to stage two, where the landlord aims to respond within approximately 20 working days.
27. When the resident raised his complaint on 19 April 2021, he requested that it be dealt with formally. Therefore, it would have been reasonable, and in line with its complaints policy for the landlord to have responded within 10 working days, or to have informed him of the need for an extension. However, the landlord failed to respond within 10 working days and there is no record of the landlord contacting him to say the response timeframe had been extended. The stage one complaint response was issued on 6 June 2021, which was 33 working days after the resident raised the complaint. This would have caused frustration for the resident as he would have been unclear how his complaint would be addressed.
28. Following the resident’s complaint escalation, the landlord once again failed to provide a stage two response within its specified timeframes, or advise of a delay. This led to the resident having to expend time and trouble in chasing the response. The landlord’s subsequent explanation that it was unclear whether he wanted to escalate the complaint was not reasonable as it could have contacted the resident to clarify the situation if it was unclear, but it failed to do so.
29. Once the landlord did escalate the complaint on 24 September 2021, there is no record of it contacting the resident again until 1 November 2021 and the stage two response was not issued until 24 November 2021, which was 44 working days after the landlord escalated the complaint and 80 working days after the resident first requested that the complaint be escalated. Although the landlord’s complaint responses did appropriately address the points the resident had made, the delay in issuing its response was unreasonable.
30. The initial delays, failure to acknowledge the escalation request, and the stage two delays amounted to maladministration in the circumstances. Based on this service’s remedies guidance, an amount of £100 is ordered in recognition of the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident.

Determination

31. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in respect of its:
    1. response to the resident’s reports that the property did not meet the landlord’s lettable standard when he moved in;
    2. complaints handling.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

32. The Ombudsman orders the landlord to pay compensation of £250, comprising:
    1. £150 for any distress and inconvenience caused to the resident by its failure to carry out a reasonable or timely inspection of the resident’s reports that the property was not at a lettable standard;
    2. £100 for its ineffective complaints handling.
33. This replaces the landlord’s previous offer of £50. This amount must be paid within four weeks of the date of this determination.

Recommendations

34. Within four weeks of the date of this determination, the landlord to contact the resident and enquire as to whether there are any outstanding repairs, and provide an indicative timeframe to complete any such repairs.