London Borough of Hillingdon (202346988)

A blue and grey text

Description automatically generated

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202346988

London Borough of Hillingdon

16 January 2025

Amended at review.

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 repairs required in the resident’s property.
The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

The resident has been a secure tenant of the landlord since 20 March 2023. The landlord is a local authority. The property is a 3 bedroom house. The resident lives with her son and daughter. The resident is deaf in one ear and has arthritis.
The Ombudsman understands that due to the resident’s disability, she was given a week’s grace period to move into the property and therefore, did not start paying rent until 27 March 2023.
On 22 March 2023, the resident contacted the landlord to report that her property required repairs. These included:
1. A leak coming from the downstairs toilet
2. Holes in the floor.
3. Blown windows in the patio door.
4. The left patio door not opening.
5. A split in the showerhead.
The landlord’s internal emails show the repairs team forwarded the resident’s email onto its voids team to undertake the repairs. It was at this point that the landlord found that due a system error, the resident’s property was not on its system and therefore neither the landlord nor resident could raise repairs.
The resident raised a formal complaint on 6 April 2023. They key points were as follows:
1. She had not been able to move into the property due to the repairs needed.
2. The landlord had not turned her gas boiler on.
3. She had contacted the landlord on 22 March 2023 who said the property was not on its system and therefore they had to refer her to its voids team. When she visited the property the following day, there was a missed appointment card, but the landlord had not informed her of the appointment.
4. She had contacted the landlord every day to resolve the issues and spoke to multiple people over that period.
5. She had received a voicemail from the tenancy manager who said it could not assist with moving, but that was not her issue.
6. The landlord had since resolved the issues, but it had had failed her on “so many levels.” She said she asked for help moving as she had 2 disabled children, but the landlord did not assist.
7. She complained about the landlord’s lack of urgency in resolving the issues and requested a rent rebate.
The landlord conducted a home visit on 20 April 2023. During that visit, the resident reported issues in the property including that her smoke alarm was not loud enough. The landlord confirmed it would raise the issues with its repairs team.
The landlord acknowledged the complaint on 13 April 2023 and provided its stage 1 response on 3 May 2023. The key points were as follows:
1. With regards to the boiler issue, the resident had contacted the landlord on 24 March 2023 and its contractor resolved the issue on 27 March 2023.
2. With regards to repairs needed to the property, the landlord had received a report from the tenancy manager who said it had visited the property on 20 April 2023. The tenancy manager had reported the issues to the repairs team.
3. It was sorry to hear that the resident had experienced difficulties in getting work progressed and for its delay in or lack of response. It had since reminded all staff of its service standards.
4. To consider a rent credit, the land said it needed to understand the request further. It asked the resident if she was saying she was unable to move into the property.
On 18 May 2023, the resident reported that both her toilets had a leak.
The resident requested escalation of her complaint to stage 2 on 31 May 2023. The key points were as follows:
1. The resident was unhappy that the landlord had given her complaint to the member of staff named in her complaint deal with.
2. She had requested a rent credit of 2 weeks, but the landlord only gave 1 week as it had fixed the toilet in the second week. However, the toilet was still leaking.
3. Her housing officer said she would report the leak to the toilet due to the resident’s house not showing on the system. The resident chased this after 2 weeks, but no one got back to her.
4. The resident kept trying to report repair issues but was unable to due to the system error. She had a leak in the toilet which caused damage to the kitchen cupboards.
5. The resident said the windowsill in her bathroom collected water which had caused damage to the grout and silicone.
6. The resident said that the issues caused a lot of stress and had caused her arthritis to flare.
Internal emails throughout May 2023 show the landlord was aware the resident was still unable to report repairs via its online system due to the property still not appearing on its systems.
The landlord provided its stage 2 response on 20 June 2023. They key points were as follows:
1. It confirmed that it had resolved the boiler issue and had agreed in its stage 1 response to report the issues relating to the windows, flooring, and smoke alarm to the repairs team.
2. It could see that the resident was unhappy that it had spoken to the tenancy officer but confirmed they did not deal with the complaint and only spoke to the tenancy officer as part of its investigations.
3. In relation to repairs needed in the property, it confirmed an operative had attended on 7 June 2023 and had resolved the issue with the leaking toilet.
4. The landlord confirmed the issue with the fire alarm was with its occupational team.
5. It had raised an inspection for 27 June 2023 for the bathroom issues including shower grouting and the windowsill. A repair was booked for the kitchen cupboard for 4 July 2023.
Following the evidence request to the landlord in this case, it confirmed that the resident had made most of the repair requests via telephone. The landlord said its contact centre did not keep phone records for longer than 3 months. It confirmed that it referred the early repairs to its voids team without raising work orders and therefore it had no repairs records.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

Throughout the period of the complaint, the resident reported the impact these repairs had on her health to her landlord. The Ombudsman does not dispute this; however, we are unable to make a determination about the causal link between the delays and the residents health. However, we will take into account the overall distress and inconvenience that the issues in this case have caused. A determination relating to damages caused to the resident’s mental health is more appropriate for the courts, and the resident has the option to seek legal advice if she the wishes to pursue this.

Policies and procedures

The landlord has a 2 stage policy for handling complaints. At stage 1, the landlord would respond within 10 working days. At stage 2, the landlord should provide a response within 10 working days. If at any stage there is likely to be a delay, the landlord should write to the resident to explain the reason and provide a new timeframe. The landlord would be expected to address each of the resident’s concerns in its complaint responses.
The landlords repair procedure, found on its website, sets out that the landlord is responsible for ensuring fixtures and fittings for water, sanitation, electricity, gas, and heating are safe and in working order.
Its repairs factsheet, found on its website, sets out the landlord will respond in the following timescales:
1. 4 hours for emergency repairs.
2. 1 working day for urgent repairs.
3. 20 working days for routine repairs.
4. 90 working days for minor works.

Repairs

On 22 March 2023, the resident contacted the landlord to report several repairs within her property. As the resident had only just taken on the tenancy, the landlord appropriately sent the repair requests onto its voids team the same day. This highlighted a commitment by the landlord to resolve the matters quickly for the resident.
The landlord appropriately arranged for a contractor to attend on 23 March 2023, in line with its policy, to inspect the property and complete any required repairs. However, the landlord did not inform the resident of this appointment and therefore she was not in and could not provide access. Landlords need to ensure they inform residents of any appointments for repairs, not doing so caused an unnecessary delay for the resident and caused her to spend time chasing the landlord to rearrange the appointment.
The Ombudsman understands that the landlord completed the repairs for the first issues reported by 4 April 2023. This was in line with its repairs policy and showed a commitment by the landlord to resolve the issues swiftly for the resident.
Between the time that the resident took over the tenancy and the landlord completing the repairs, the resident reported having to call the landlord daily to follow up on the repairs. The Ombudsman understands that a system error prevented the resident from logging repair requests. However, knowing about this error, the landlord should have implemented an effective system to log repairs during that period. Without such a system, the landlord was unable to track the repairs or manage the resident’s expectations about the completion timeline. Additionally, it would have been helpful for the landlord to provide an approximate timescale for the repairs, in line with its repairs policy, to better manage the resident’s expectations. The lack of this information caused the resident to spend time repeatedly chasing the landlord for updates.
Following the first repair to the toilet, the leak reoccurred. While this would have been inconvenient for the resident, the landlord is entitled to rely on its qualified contractors when they say they have fixed an issue. The resident reported that the leak had reoccurred on 18 May 2023, but an operative did not attend until 7 June 2023. This response time does not align with the landlord’s policy, which says it would address urgent repairs, including water leaks, within 24 hours. Landlords must ensure that they attend urgent repair requests within the correct timescales. Failing to do so likely frustrated the resident, who had to spend time chasing the landlord for a response and was left living with a constant leak in her property.
In the resident’s escalation request to stage 2 of the complaint process on 31 May 2023, she reported that her bathroom windowsill was slanted, causing water to collect and damage the area. The landlord appropriately raised a repair request for its maintenance team to attend on 27 June 2023. This action was in line with its repair policy and showed a commitment to resolving the issue for the resident at that stage.
In the resident’s request to escalate her complaint to stage 2 of the complaint process, she also mentioned that the landlord had passed her complaint to the tenancy officer she had liaised with after moving in. The landlord appropriately explained that it had spoken to this staff member as part of its investigation and that the staff member had not investigated the complaint. The landlord is entitled to investigate complaints, including discussing the issues with those directly involved. Therefore, it was reasonable for the landlord to do so and appropriate that it explained its reasoning to the resident.
In the resident’s formal complaint, she requested a rent rebate for the period in which she could not move into the property. In the landlord’s response, it asked the resident to confirm what she had meant by that and to provide further information. It appropriately advised it had tried to contact the resident to explore and understand her request but was unsuccessful in doing so. While frustrating for the resident, it was reasonable that the landlord sought to seek further clarification via its formal response given that its initial attempt had been unsuccessful.
In her request to escalate the complaint to stage 2, the resident provided additional clarity. However, there is no evidence that the landlord formally responded to this request. It would have been appropriate for the landlord to offer a formal response and explain its reasoning for not granting a further rent rebate. Failing to do so showed a disregard for the resident’s request.
Throughout the complaint, the resident had to spend a considerable amount of time chasing the landlord for a response to her concerns. The Ombudsman understands the landlord had a system error which meant it could not record repairs, however that it is not a reasonable reason for any delay in addressing repairs. Where the landlord is aware such errors are occurring, they need to ensure they have temporary systems in place. Not doing meant the resident had to constantly chase the landlord and even then, it did not log repairs appropriately. The Ombudsman finds that the landlord’s lack of an effective system to track repairs in this instance caused unreasonable delays for the resident and her family.
To conclude, after the resident initially reported the repair requests, the landlord attended and completed the initial repairs within its policy timescales. However, it unnecessarily delayed resolving the second leak within its published timescales and did not provide evidence that it communicated these delays to the resident. The evidence shows that the landlord’s communications fell short of the standard expected by the Ombudsman. Due to the landlord’s system error, the resident had to spend a considerable amount of time chasing updates. The landlord failed to implement an effective temporary solution for its error, and the evidence indicates that its staff were unsure how to raise repairs for the resident without access to the usual system. This would have frustrated the resident and caused her to take time and trouble to pursue a resolution.
Therefore, the Ombudsman finds there was service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of repairs required in her property.
A compensation order has been made for £300, made up of:
1. £100 for failings found in the landlord’s communication.
2. £150 for the overall delays in this case.
3. £50 for the time and trouble taken by the resident.

Complaint handling

The resident raised a formal complaint with the landlord on 6 April 2023. The landlord acknowledged the complaint on 13 April 2023. This response time was in line with its policy which was reasonable.
Moving on, the landlord provided its stage 1 response on 3 May 2023. This was 3 working days after the response was due as per the landlord’s policy. Having considered everything, this Service does not consider the minor delay to be so significant as to warrant a failing. With this being said, the landlord should ensure that if it cannot provide the response within the set period, it should inform the resident of this and advise when it would provide the response.
The resident requested escalation to stage 2 of the complaints process on 31 May 2023 and the landlord appropriately acknowledged the request and said it would respond, in line with its policy, within 20 working days. The landlord provided its stage 2 response on 20 June 2023, in line with its policy.
In the landlord’s stage 1 response it did not fully address each aspect of the resident’s complaint. The stage 1 complaint response did not address the concerns the resident had raised about the leak from the toilet and the issue with the upstairs toilet flush and her request for help with moving. The Code sets out that a complaint response should address all the issues raised. While the Ombudsman understands that at that stage the landlord had resolved the toilet leak, the Ombudsman would expect the landlord to have set out clearly the action it had taken in relation to this issue including and to have conducted an investigation into its handling of the issue. The lack of a thorough response would have frustrated the resident.
Furthermore, in the resident’s escalation request she raised new issues which had not formed part of her original complaint. The landlord chose to address these in its stage 2 response. However, the Code sets out that a complaint should go through a 2 stage complaint process. It would therefore have been appropriate for the landlord to discussed this with the resident to ascertain if she was happy for the landlord to address these at stage 2 or if she wished for a new complaint to be raised. Not doing so denied the resident the opportunity of pursuing certain aspects of her complaint through a 2 stage complaint procedure.
As part of this investigation the Ombudsman asked the landlord to provide documents, correspondence, and any other evidence relevant to the resident’s complaint. The landlord provided only limited information, which did not include significant items such as call logs or communication between the resident and the landlord about the repairs. The omissions show poor record keeping by the landlord in that it was not able to provide the relevant information when asked. This is likely to have caused inconvenience for the resident in that the Ombudsman is unable to fully investigate her concerns about the landlord’s communication. As such, the landlord has not provided sufficient evidence to show that it communicated effectively during the complaint process and has not shown that it took adequate steps in a timely manner to resolve the resident’s issues or explain its position to her.
Furthermore, the landlord has informed the Ombudsman that its contact centre does not hold phone records for longer than 3 months. However, the Ombudsman would expect a landlord to have an effective system in place to record and hold data in relation to contact from residents. Not doing so has meant the Ombudsman has been unable to assess either way if the landlord responded in line with its policy to issues raised by the resident.
Overall, the landlord’s complaint handling and record keeping fell short of the standard expected by the Ombudsman. It did not address fully all the issues raised by the resident and then addressed others without learning first if the resident wished to raise a new complaint. Its lack of records in relation to the resident’s complaint highlights a lack of effective systems to record and hold resident data particularly around communication from a resident.
Therefore, there was maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.
A compensation order has been made for £200, made up of the following:
1. £50 for not addressing all the issues raised and considering raising a new complaint for new issues raised.
2. £75 for the time and trouble taken by the resident.
3. £75 for the distress and inconvenience caused.
We encourage landlords to self-assess against the Ombudsman’s spotlight reports following publication. In May 2023 we published our spotlight on Knowledge and Information Management. The evidence gathered during this investigation shows the landlord’s practise was not in line with that recommended in the spotlight report. We encourage landlords to consider the findings and recommendations of our spotlight report unless the landlord can provide evidence it has self-assessed already.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the scheme, there was service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s report of repairs required in the property.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

Within 4 weeks of the date of this determination the landlord must pay compensation to the resident of £500, made up of the following:
1. £300 for its handling of the resident’s reports of repairs required in her property.
2. £200 for its complaint handling.
Within 4 weeks of the date of this determination, a senior member of staff must write to the resident to apologise for the failings identified in this investigation.
The Ombudsman understands that the repairs to the resident’s bathroom windowsill and her kitchen cupboards are still outstanding. Within 4 weeks of the date of this determination, the landlord must liaise with the resident and provide a time-specific action plan of the steps it intends to take to resolve the issue.

Recommendations

Following the evidence request in this case, the landlord confirmed its contact centre did not hold any phone records for longer than 3 months and it therefore was unable to supply any evidence in relation to phone contact made by the resident. The landlord should consider implementing a system to ensure that resident contact is logged on its systems, to effectively track and monitor resident’s issues.
The landlord should review its complaints policy and procedure to ensure its complaints process aligns with the new Complaint Handling Code which was published on 1 April 2024. The landlord should consider undertaking a review of its complaint handling in this case to ensure similar failures do not occur again.