London Borough of Newham (202123325)

Back to Top

 

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202123325

London Borough of Newham

29 November 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

  1. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of:
    1. Overgrown trees located at the front and rear of the resident’s property.
    2. A leak at the property.
    3. The replacement of the resident’s kitchen.
    4. The associated complaint.

Background

  1. The resident is a secure tenant of the landlord.
  2. On 7 June 2021, the resident submitted a complaint to the landlord. She explained that there had been an issue with overgrown trees for around 10 years and stated it had now become a health hazard. She also stated that she had contacted the repairs departments on multiple occasions regarding a leak at the property and the leak still had not been resolved. The resident also explained that she was told in 2019/2020 that she qualified for a new kitchen, but the kitchen replacement had not been carried out.
  3. On 21 January 2022, the resident submitted an additional complaint to the landlord. She explained that there were 3 overgrown trees in the garden of her property which had damaged her property. She also stated that there was a leak at the property and that she wanted her kitchen replaced, which was previously agreed by the landlord.
  1. The landlord provided its stage 1 complaint response to the resident on 1 February 2022. It explained that it had arranged for its senior building surveyor to visit the resident’s property on 21 February 2022 and stated that the surveyor would confirm with the resident which repairs would be carried out.
  2. On 4 April 2022, the resident contacted the landlord and requested her complaint to be escalated to the next stage of the landlord’s complaints process. She explained that she was unhappy that the surveyor did not attend her property in February 2022 and stated that the landlord’s operatives turned up without booking an appointment.
  3. The landlord provided its stage 2 complaint response to the resident on 22 June 2022. It explained that its contractor attended the resident’s property on 10 May 2022 to cut down the tree in the front garden. However, when the contractor returned on 11 May 2022 to attend to another tree, there was an active bird’s nest in the tree, so they were unable to carry out any further work. The landlord also stated that it had arranged for a survey of the resident’s kitchen on 17 May 2022 and a new kitchen was installed on 16 June 2022.
  4. In relation to the reported leak, it explained that it had recommended on 19 July 2021 that an inspection of the resident’s roof should be carried out. However, the landlord stated that the inspection was not carried out and was rebooked for 13 May 2022. The landlord offered the resident £150 compensation to recognise the length of time it took to resolve the overgrown trees, £150 compensation for the length of time it took to resolve the leak at the property and £50 for its late stage 2 complaint response. The tree work was completed in June 2023. The landlord’s record’s do not clearly indicate when the leak was resolved
  5. The resident remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s response and submitted her complaint to the Ombudsman. She stated that her desired outcome was for the landlord to consider the length of time it had taken to complete the repairs and increased compensation for the distress and inconvenience.
  6. The resident confirmed with the Ombudsman in November 2023 that all the repairs had been completed.

Assessment and findings

Scope of Investigation

  1. The resident raised concerns that overgrown trees were an issue from over 10 years ago. However, there is no evidence of a formal complaint being raised until June 2021. In view of the time periods involved in this case and considering the availability and reliability of evidence, this report will consider specific events around six months prior to when the resident submitted her complaint in June 2021. This is because paragraph 42(c) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme (available on our website), explains that this service may not investigate complaints that were not brought to the attention of the landlord as a formal complaint within a reasonable period, normally within six months of the matters arising.
  2. The resident also mentioned as part of the complaint that her daughter tripped over due to an overgrown root from one of the trees. She also stated that her daughter’s mental health had been impacted due to the overgrown trees outside her property. The service does not doubt the resident’s comments about her daughter’s health. However, it is outside the Ombudsman’s role to determine whether there is a direct link between the landlord’s actions or inaction and any specific impact on the resident’s daughter’s health. It would be more appropriately suited for a court or liability insurer to investigate a personal injury claim. Courts can award damages in a different way to the Ombudsman and review medical evidence.
  3. However, this service can consider the general risk as well as any distress and inconvenience caused by any errors by the landlord and the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about her daughter’s injuries.

Assessment

Overgrown tress located at the front and rear of the resident’s property.

  1. The landlord’s website includes information about tree management. It explains that the landlord is responsible for all trees which are on land owned by it. It also states that the landlord’s tree maintenance contractor must carry out any required work on the trees.
  2. The resident raised as part of her complaint emails from June 2021 and January 2022 that there were overgrown trees located at the front and rear of the property which were causing a health hazard and damaging her property. The landlord’s repairs log also references that the resident reported an issue with overgrown trees in August 2021 and confirms that there were 2 overgrown trees in the front garden and one overgrown tree in the rear garden. The notes on the repair log also stated that a large tree was causing damage to the resident’s rear garden door.
  3. There was a slight delay in the landlord’s tree contractor attending the resident’s property to inspect and carry out the required work to the overgrown trees. The tree contractor attended the resident’s property on 27 September 2021 and carried out works on a tree which included cutting back the tree and grinding the tree stump. However, following this, there was a significant delay in the landlord’s contractor reattending the resident’s property to carry out work on the other overgrown trees.
  4. The tree contractor did not attend the resident’s property until May 2022 to undertake work on the other overgrown trees. The landlord explained in its stage 2 complaint response that the delay was due to the landlord’s tree contractor having a backlog of work due to previous covid restrictions which had been in place. It is recognised that some of the delay was outside of the landlord’s control due to the contactor’s backlog of jobs. The records indicate that one of the overgrown trees was causing damage to the resident’s property and top the pavement slabs, which was also referenced in the resident’s additional complaint email dated 21 January 2022. Therefore, the Ombudsman would have expected the landlord to attend the resident’s property more quickly than it did to resolve the issue and help prevent any further damage to the resident’s property.
  5. The landlord’s tree contractor visited the resident’s property on 10 May 2022 and cut back one of the trees in the front garden. The contractor returned to the resident’s property on 11 May 2022 to undertake further work on the trees. However, the landlord stated in its stage 2 complaint response that there were active birds’ nest in the other 2 trees. Therefore, the contactor was unable to carry out any further work on that date, as they were unable to disturb the nests. The Ombudsman recognises that this delay would have been outside of the landlord’s control.
  6. In May 2022, it was also identified by the landlord’s surveyor that tree roots were lifting up and damaging the paving and concrete panel fence at the side and end of the rear garden. Therefore, it was confirmed that these required replacing.
  7. The landlord confirmed in its file submission that the last of the work to resolve the overgrown trees and associated damage was carried out in June 2023. This included the landlord’s contractor cutting back one of the trees on 12 June 2023 and another tree was cut back and shaped on 19 June 2023. Overall, there was a significant delay in the landlord completing all of the required work to the overgrown trees. This caused the resident and her family to have limited use to the outside of the property due to the significant amount of bird faeces and damage to the paving and fence. Therefore, there has been maladministration in the landlord’s handling of overgrown trees at the front and rear of the resident’s property.
  8. The landlord acknowledged in its stage 2 complaint response that there was a delay in resolving the overgrown trees outside the resident’s property. It offered the resident £150 compensation to recognise the delay. The resident initially complained about the trees in June 2021, and the final works to resolve the overgrown trees were not completed until two years later in June 2023. Therefore, the Ombudsman believes it would be appropriate for the landlord to pay the resident additional compensation of £300 to recognise the further delay the resident experienced after the stage 2 complaint response was issued.
  9. The amount of compensation awarded is in line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance (published on our website), which sets out the Ombudsman’s approach to compensation. The remedies guidance suggests awards of £100 to £600 where there has been a failure by the landlord which adversely affected the resident but there may be no permanent impact.

A leak at the property.

  1. The landlord’s website includes information about repairs. It states that the landlord is responsible for repairing water service pipes, overflow pipes and water tanks. Therefore, it is responsible for responding to a leak at a resident’s property. The website also explains that it would consider an uncontained leak, or a leak affecting the electrics or another property, as an emergency repair. The website does not include any information about repair timescales for emergency or routine repairs.
  2. The resident stated in her complaint emails from June 2021 and January 2022 that she had contacted the landlord’s repairs department on multiple occasions regarding a leak at her property. She explained that the leak had not been repaired.
  3. The landlord’s records show that the resident initially reported a leak entering her kitchen on 5 April 2021. It was identified that the leak came from the bathroom into the kitchen. The landlord’s contractor visited the resident’s property on the same day to make the impacted area safe. In addition, the landlord’s contractor attended the resident’s property on 8 April 2021 following an additional report from the resident that the previous water ingress was setting off the smoke alarm. The contractor also reattended the resident’s property on 9 April 2021 to restore the smoke alarm after the affected area had dried out. It is recognised that the landlord responded to the initial reports of the leak promptly and carried out the necessary works to make the affected area safe.
  4. After the landlord’s contractor visited the resident’s property in April 2021, the resident still continued to experience issues with the leak. To help identify the cause of the leak and to resolve the issue, the landlord’s contractor recommended in July 2021 for a roof inspection to be carried out. However, there was a significant delay in the landlord carrying out the inspection. The landlord explained in its stage 2 response that it had rearranged the inspection of the roof for 13 May 2022. The landlord’s significant delay in inspecting the roof was unreasonable and the Ombudsman would have expected the landlord to carry out the inspection shortly after July 2021 as it had previously agreed to. The landlord’s record’s do not clearly indicate when the leak was resolved but it is presumed that this would have been soon after the roof inspection, and before the kitchen was replaced in June 2022.
  5. The delay in the landlord resolving the leak, resulted in the resident’s kitchen ceiling, wall and flooring being damaged. The landlord’s records state that the kitchen ceiling required replastering and the floor tiles required replacing. The resident’s use of her kitchen would have been impacted and she was left to use a damaged kitchen for around 1 year, as her kitchen was not repaired and replaced until June 2022.
  6. In addition, during the landlord’s surveyor inspection at the resident’s property in June 2023, the surveyor confirmed that the only outstanding repair at the time was trimming around the roof. However, the landlord stated that this did not cause any damp. The landlord stated in its file submission that it would complete the roof trimming works on 17 July 2023. The resident also told the Ombudsman in November 2023 that there were no repairs outstanding.
  7. The landlord acknowledged in its stage 2 complaint response that there was a delay resolving the leak at the resident’s property. It offered the resident £150 compensation to recognise the delay. The amount of compensation offered by the landlord was not proportionate to the delay and the distress and inconvenience the resident would have experienced from the unresolved leak. As referenced above, the leak resulted in the resident’s kitchen ceiling, wall and flooring being damaged. Therefore, the resident and her family had to use a damaged kitchen for approximately 1 year.
  8. Therefore, there has been maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the leak at the resident’s property. The Ombudsman believes it would be appropriate for the landlord to pay the resident additional compensation of £300 to appropriately recognise the delay and distress and inconvenience the resident would have experienced. The amount of compensation awarded is in line with the Ombudsman’s Remedies Guidance referenced above.

The landlord’s handling of the replacement of the resident’s kitchen.

  1. The landlord’s website includes information, published in December 2018, which explained that over the next five years it would carry out major works on applicable properties. The works referenced included replacing windows, reroofing, replacing boilers, and upgrading bathrooms and kitchens.
  2. The resident raised as part of her complaint, that she was unhappy that she had not received a new replacement kitchen which the landlord previously agreed to complete. The resident has stated that she was told by the landlord in 2019/2020 that her kitchen would be replaced.
  3. The Ombudsman sent a request to the landlord in November 2023 for a copy of any correspondence sent to the resident regarding the kitchen replacement, however no response was received from the landlord. As the Ombudsman has not been provided with a copy of the correspondence relating to the kitchen replacement, there is no evidence to confirm the works the landlord agreed to, or by which date it agreed to replace the resident’s kitchen by. However, the landlord’s records do show that a kitchen renewal survey was booked in March 2020 but was cancelled due to COVID-19 restrictions.
  4. The landlord’s records show that the kitchen renewal survey was rebooked and carried out on 23 September 2021. The notes explained that the kitchen only required remedial work. The landlord attempted to carry out the identified remedial works to the kitchen on 16 March 2022, however the resident refused the repair and explained that she wanted a new kitchen. The Ombudsman believes the landlord acted appropriately in this instance, as the landlord would only be expected to replace a kitchen if it required replacement and an inspection indicated this. Although the landlord referenced in its stage 2 complaint response that the kitchen only required remedial work, it would have been reasonable for the landlord to provide a more detailed explanation to the resident of why it did not believe the kitchen required replacement.
  5. After the kitchen survey carried out in September 2021, the resident’s kitchen experienced further damage due to an unresolved leak. Due to this, the landlord agreed in its stage 2 complaint response to carry out an additional survey of the kitchen. The survey of the kitchen took place on 17 May 2022, and it was recommended that the kitchen should be replaced. The landlord replaced the resident’s kitchen shortly after in June 2022.In this instance, the landlord acted reasonably, as it replaced the kitchen as soon as its surveyor recommended that the kitchen required this. It was reasonable for a landlord to rely on the expert knowledge of a surveyor to confirm required works to a property as they are qualified to do this. There has been no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the replacement of the kitchen.

The associated complaint

  1. The Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the code) sets out the Ombudsman’s expectations for landlords’ complaint handling practices. The code states that a stage 1 response should be provided within 10 working days of the complaint. It also explains that a stage 2 response should be provided within 20 working days from when the resident escalated their complaint. The landlord’s complaints policy includes the same timescales which are referenced in the code.
  2. The code also states that a landlord must accept a complaint unless there is a valid reason not to do so. In addition, it explains when a complaint is made, it must be acknowledged and logged at stage 1 of the landlord’s complaint procedure within 5 days of receipt.
  3. The landlord’s complaints policy defines a complaint as an expression of dissatisfaction from a resident, however made, about the standard of service, actions, or lack of action by the organisation, its own staff, or those acting on its behalf.
  4. The resident sent an email to the landlord on 7 June 2021, expressing her dissatisfaction with the overgrown trees, a leak at her property, and that her kitchen had not been replaced.
  5. The landlord failed to log the resident’s email as a complaint. The resident expressed dissatisfaction and provided valid complaint points for her email to be considered as a complaint. Therefore, the service would have expected the landlord to consider the resident’s email dated 7 June 2021 as a complaint and issue a stage 1 complaint response in this instance. The landlord did not comply with its own complaints policy and the code when it failed to log the resident’s email as a complaint. This delayed the issue raised being resolved, and also delayed the resident from bringing her complaint to the Ombudsman.
  6. The landlord acknowledged and logged the resident’s correspondence dated 21 January 2022 as a complaint. The landlord provided its stage 1 complaint response to the resident on 1 February 2022. The response was on time and compliant with the timescales referenced in the code and the landlord’s complaints policy.
  7. On 4 April 2022, the resident requested her complaint to be escalated to the next stage of the landlord’s complaint process. Following this, it took the landlord over 2 months for it to issue its stage 2 complaint response, which was sent to the resident on 22 June 2022. The response was late and would have delayed the resident progressing her complaint to the Ombudsman because she needed to wait for the landlord’s response before contacting our service.
  8. The landlord acknowledged in its stage 2 complaint response that its response was late and offered the resident £50 compensation to recognise the delay. However, it failed to recognise its error in not logging the resident’s email dated 7 June 2021 as a complaint. Therefore, it would be appropriate for the landlord to pay the resident an additional £200 compensation for the distress and inconvenience. The amount of compensation is compliant with the Ombudsman’s Remedies Guidance referenced above.

Determination (decision)

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the overgrown trees located at the front and rear of the resident’s property.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of a leak at the property.
  3. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the replacement of the resident’s kitchen.
  4. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the associated complaint.

Orders

  1. Within 4 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord must pay the resident a total of £800, comprised of:
    1. £300 compensation for its handling of the overgrown trees located at the front and rear of the resident’s property.
    2. £300 compensation for its handling of a leak at the property.
    3. £200 compensation for its complaint handling errors.

Recommendations

  1. It is recommended that the landlord pay the resident its original offer made in its stage 2 response of £350 compensation if it has not already done so.
  2. The landlord to create a separate repairs policy with repairs timescales if it does not already have one in place.