Milton Keynes City Council (202309298)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202309298

Milton Keynes City Council

30 May 2024

Our approach

The Housing Ombudsman’s approach to investigating and determining complaints is to decide what is fair in all the circumstances of the case. This is set out in the Housing Act 1996 and the Housing Ombudsman Scheme (the Scheme). The Ombudsman considers the evidence and looks to see if there has been any ‘maladministration’, for example whether the landlord has failed to keep to the law, followed proper procedure, followed good practice or behaved in a reasonable and competent manner.

Both the resident and the landlord have submitted information to the Ombudsman and this has been carefully considered. Their accounts of what has happened are summarised below. This report is not an exhaustive description of all the events that have occurred in relation to this case, but an outline of the key issues as a background to the investigation’s findings.

The complaint

The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of:
1. Water ingress from the balcony above the property.
2. Repairs following a burst pipe under the bath.
This Service has also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

The resident was an assured tenant at the property from 14 February 2022 until 26 June 2023, when she purchased it under the right to buy scheme. The property is a two-bedroom ground floor flat in a purpose-built block. The block has 2 storeys and residents of the first floor have access to a proportion of the single balcony that runs the length of the block. The resident has no vulnerabilities.
Information has been provided regarding activity that happened before the resident moved into the property and after the landlord’s final stage 2 response. Any reference to events that occurred during these periods are for reference purposes only and have not otherwise been considered.
The resident moved into the property on 14 February 2022 after completing a mutual exchange. A property inspection report completed as part of the mutual exchange process, by the landlord on 28 December 2021, showed photographs of damage to the living room ceiling. The landlord noted on the report that the “incoming tenant must be aware that the damage to the ceiling is caused by leaks from the balcony upstairs which is on a programme of works with no confirmed date when it will be done”.
An internal landlord email dated 21 March 2022 said that the resident had contacted it to find out when the balconies in the block were due to be replaced. The resident emailed the landlord again on 31 March 2022 to ask for a response to her query.
On 20 April 2022 the resident emailed the landlord again. She explained that she had 3 ceiling lights which she could no longer use and that the light bulb had fallen out of the kitchen light fitting. She said that this was due to the ceiling damage caused by the leak.
On 2 May 2022 the resident emailed the landlord again. She said that she had “dangerous electrics”, damaged ceilings and that the landlord had still not completed the mandatory move-in electrical check. The landlord’s customer service team arranged an inspection of the property on 9 May 2022.
On 12 May 2022 the resident emailed the landlord. She said that the landlord had not attended the property on 9 May 2022 and she was now not available until 23 May 2022 due to work commitments. On 20 May 2022 she emailed the landlord again asking for an update.
The landlord contacted the resident on 25 May 2022. It arranged an appointment for a building surveyor to attend on 30 May 2022, which was the next date that the resident was available due to work commitments.
On 23 June 2022 a contractor sealed the balcony of the flat above the property.
On 11 July 2022 the resident asked for an update. She said that an electrical test had been completed on 27 June 2022 but the electrician had not been able to fix the lights due to the ongoing leak. The landlord responded on 12 July 2022. It said that it would replace the lights on 18 July 2022. It also said that it would repair and replaster the ceiling on 15 August 2022 and repaint it on 22 August 2022.
On 18 July 2022 the landlord replaced the light fittings in the lounge and kitchen.
On 22 August 2022 a contractor attended the property and discovered that there was still evidence of leaks above the ceilings which it would need to rectify before the area was replastered. Plumbing work was subsequently carried out at the flat above the property.
On 16 October 2022 the resident made a formal complaint. She said that water dripped “constantly” into her home via the light fittings in both rooms. She said that mould was growing predominantly in the kitchen but also in other rooms. She said that paint fell from the ceilings daily and that cooking was problematic. The resident asked to see a schedule of works to fix the leak and a deadline for completion.
On 21 November 2022 a contractor attended the property to replaster the ceiling in the living room and kitchen. However, it cancelled the job because the area was still wet.
On 6 December 2022 the resident emailed the landlord again. She said that she was still waiting for repairs to her ceiling and asked the landlord to escalate the issue. She said that she had taken multiple days off work and either the contractor had not arrived or the wrong contractor had attended.
A supervisor met the resident at the property on 21 December 2022. The supervisor discovered that the ceilings were still wet and delayed a further appointment to replaster them to give the area chance to dry out. The supervisor raised another job to repair the balcony above the property because water was pooling on it.
The resident emailed the landlord and contractor on 15 January 2023. She said that the ceiling had deteriorated since the supervisor’s visit. She said that water was dripping through and pooling on her living room and kitchen floors and water was coming through the active light fitting in the kitchen. She also said that paint and debris was constantly falling off the ceilings. The contractor responded to advise the resident that it had raised a job to check the lights and arranged an appointment to inspect the balcony above on 1 February 2023.
An electrician attended the property on 23 January 2023 and taped up the cables in the light fittings so that water could not get into them. This meant that there was no overhead lighting in the kitchen or living room again.
On 2 February 2023 the resident emailed the landlord and contractor. She asked for an update following the balcony inspection.
On 28 February 2023 a contractor stripped the covering off the balcony above the property and recovered it.
On 2 March 2023 the landlord provided a stage 1 complaint response. It apologised for the problems the resident had experienced. It said that the contractor had completed the balcony work on 28 February 2023. It also said that it would scrape back and skim over the damaged plaster in the kitchen and living room on 20 March 2023.
The resident emailed the landlord on 11 March 2023 to advise it that the ceiling in the property was dripping again following recent snow and rainfall. The landlord escalated the complaint to stage 2 of its complaints process.
On 4 May 2023 contractors carried out the following work to the first-floor balconies:
1. Removed existing feather edge cladding and installed new shiplap cladding applying sealant behind each cut end.
2. Applied sealant along the bottom and sides of upstands to ensure that the bottom edge of the cladding was sealed to stop water entering from the underside.
3. Re-cladded the cover of a condenser pipe exit.
4. Applied sealant to the perimeter of the framework.
5. Applied 2 coats of black multi-surface paint to the cladding.
6. Applied sealant to all vertical joints of timber and UPVC trims and underside of door sills.
7. Installed UPVC cover trim to ensure that water could not track behind the asphalt.
8. Applied sealant to the underside of asphalt vents and around weathering discs.
9. Remade the joint to the gutter and cleaned out the gutter.
On 26 May 2023 the landlord responded to a query the resident had raised regarding outstanding repairs and her application to purchase the property. It said that any repairs reported while she was a tenant should be completed by the landlord.
On 17 June 2023 the resident reported an uncontrollable leak in the bathroom. The landlord attended on the same day to stop the leak and replaced a tap connector on 23 June 2023.
The resident purchased the property on 26 June 2023.
On 30 June 2023 a contractor replaced the bath panel following the leak and inspected the damp walls. The contractor reported that plaster needed to be removed up to 900mm and then replastered in the hall, a corner of the living room and in a cupboard due to water damage caused by the leak in the bathroom.
On 5 July 2023 the resident emailed the contractor to ask for an update on both the ceiling repair and the wet walls. The contractor emailed her back to advise her that it had raised an order to reboard and replaster the walls after the bathroom leak and that planners would contact her with an appointment date. The landlord also arranged for a building surveyor to attend the property on 11 July 2023 when a CCTV survey of the drains on the balconies was carried out. This survey did not identify any issues. The contractor supplied dehumidifiers on 31 July 2023.
On 31 August 2023 the contractor raised a job for another contractor to line the rainwater drain on the first-floor balconies.
On 3 September 2023 the resident emailed the landlord and contractor to say that water was dripping through the ceiling again. She reminded the landlord that the ceiling lights in the kitchen and living room were not working and expressed concern about being without them for a second winter. She said that she was also still waiting for replastering work following the bathroom leak.
On 4 September 2023 the contractor responded to the resident and said that it had raised a job for work to be carried out on the balconies in the block. It said that it was waiting for a supervisor to authorise the work and it had chased this up. The contractor said that now the resident was a leaseholder she was responsible for internal repairs so it would not rectify the damage caused by the leak under the bath after all. The resident responded to advise the contractor that the damage occurred when she was still a tenant and therefore it should still carry out the work.
The landlord emailed the resident on 5 September 2023. It told her that it would review her concerns and update her by the end of the week.
On 7 September 2023 a contractor attended to line the rainwater drain from one of the first-floor balconies, however it was not the balcony above the resident’s flat.
On 19 September 2023 the resident emailed the landlord and contractor asking for an update. The landlord responded on 21 September 2023. It apologised for not responding sooner and said that it had decided to answer all remaining issues as part of its stage 2 complaint response.
The landlord provided a stage 2 complaint response on 30 September 2023. It apologised for the issues the resident had had with the leak from the balcony above and explained that it had trialled different works to repair it which included decking and cladding repairs. It said that it would continue to monitor the situation to see if further work was needed and that a named officer “will continue to work with all the residents to progress works as required”.
The landlord also said that it was currently trialling a repair on a drain channel on one of the other properties affected which it would complete on the balcony above her property if it was successful. It signposted the resident to its insurance company and how to make a claim. The landlord also addressed the leak in the bathroom by explaining that it was no longer responsible for any repairs regarding this because the resident had now purchased her property.
The landlord sent the stage 2 complaint response via its customer feedback system. However, the resident did not receive it and chased the response on 8 and 30 October 2023. On 31 October 2023 the landlord advised her that it had sent the response on 30 September 2023 and sent the resident a copy.
On 26 and 31 January 2024 and 7 February 2024 the resident emailed the landlord asking for an update regarding the balcony repair because she had received no further updates and the problems were still occurring.
On 16 February 2024 the resident reported that the water ingress from the balcony above had caused the electrics in the property to trip. The job was cancelled by the landlord. She emailed the landlord and contractor to ask when an operative would attend.
The landlord responded to say that the balcony repair was being progressed but the resident was responsible for repairs within the property even if they were caused by a leak from an area the landlord was responsible for.
On 21 February 2024 the landlord raised a repair for a contractor to “thoroughly clean the roof outlet to the balcony (above the property) and re-line the drain to prevent leaks from a defective joint within the slab”. It said that work was to match a successful repair to the balcony drain on another flat. The landlord cancelled this job to obtain quotations for the work.
The landlord told this Service that the above work was due to be completed by 10 May 2024, it has since advised that the work was completed on 16 May 2024. The resident advised this Service that she did not know if the work had been carried out.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s handling of water ingress from the balcony above the property.

The landlord is responsible for repairing the balcony under the terms of both the tenancy agreement and the lease agreement, and it correctly accepted this responsibility.
The resident was aware of the leak when she moved into the property and the landlord informed her at the time that repairs were on a programme of works with no confirmed date of completion. This implied that a course of action to resolve the issue had been identified but this Service has seen no evidence that this was the case. This was a failing by the landlord which led to distress and inconvenience for the resident. She did not realise when she decided to move into the property that she would live with damp and flaking ceilings for more than 2 years and no ceiling lights in 2 rooms for more than 1.5 years.
The landlord did not have a repairs policy at the time of the complaint, however it said that it would rectify this. It said that repairs guidance for tenants was within its tenant’s handbook. However, the handbook does not give any timescales in which it will complete repairs which fails to manage residents’ expectations.
Section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 places an obligation on the landlord to keep in good repair and working order, the structure of the property. This resident has lived with damp and flaking ceilings and no ceiling lights in 2 rooms for over 2 years which is not acceptable and has caused the resident considerable distress and inconvenience.
The resident asked the landlord 4 times after moving in if there was an update regarding the work to the balcony, but this Service has seen no evidence that it replied to her first 3 requests at all. There is evidence that the landlord also missed appointments and failed to respond to further emails. This was a communication failing by the landlord that cost the resident time and trouble because she had to contact it numerous times for updates.
The landlord carried out various repairs to the balcony but did not undertake post inspection checks to see if works had been effective in resolving the issue until a contractor attended the property to replace light fittings or replaster. This failure by the landlord cost the resident further time and trouble because she had to take time off work to attend the appointments which were then cancelled.
The resident told the landlord that water was dripping through the light fittings which worried her. She also spent many months without a ceiling light in her kitchen and living room. This would be especially problematic in the kitchen in winter months. Paint was falling off the ceilings onto the floor and work surfaces. The landlord did not keep her informed of the progress of the repairs and what it was doing to try to resolve the issue. This lack of communication caused the resident further distress and inconvenience at an already distressing time.
On 4 September 2023 the contractor, acting on behalf of the landlord, informed the resident that it had ordered further work to be carried out on the balconies in the block. It said that this would include the balcony above the resident and that it was waiting for authorisation for this from a supervisor. The landlord later decided that it would only carry out the work on one of the balconies. However, it did not inform the resident of this decision until it sent its stage 2 response which she received at the end of October 2023. The delay in communicating this information would have caused further disappointment and distress and inconvenience because the residents’ expectations had been raised and she was expecting the work to be completed.
Various supervisors and contractors attended the property to try to resolve the issue with the balcony. However, this Service has seen no evidence that a member of staff took ownership and responsibility for resolving it.The issue affected other residents in the block also and a manager should have ensured that the work being carried out on each section of the balcony was recorded and that the effectiveness of each intervention was monitored.
There is evidence that a water ingress investigation was carried out 2 years prior to when the resident moved in but this could have been repeated to try to finally find an answer to where the water was coming from. This lack of cohesion led to a delay because the landlord waited for residents to report further issues. This meant that the resident lived in unsatisfactory conditions for longer than was necessary and that she was not kept informed of progress, leading to further distress and inconvenience.
Due to the failings identified there was maladministration in the landlords handling of water ingress from the balcony above the property.

The landlord’s handling of repairs following a burst pipe under the bath.

The tenant’s handbook says that it classes a burst pipe as an emergency repair. It does not give a timescale for the completion of an emergency repair however there is evidence that the landlord responded to the resident’s report of a burst pipe in an appropriate timescale.
Government advice via its website states that social landlord’s will usually stop completing non-essential repairs once a tenant has applied to buy a property through the right to buy scheme. However, this Service has seen no evidence that the landlord advised the resident that it would only carry out emergency repairs when she applied to buy the property.
The contractor that attended the property on 30 June 2023, after the resident had purchased the property, ordered reboarding and plastering of the walls following the leak under the bath. The contractor also told the resident on 5 July 2023 that it would let her know when it had booked the appointment to carry out the work and it delivered dehumidifiers to dry out the walls prior to the work taking place. This gave the resident an expectation that the work would be completed.
However, on 4 September 2023, the contractor advised the resident that it would not carry out the work after all because she was the leaseholder of the property. The landlord failed to communicate its decision not to carry out the work in a timely manner and only advised the resident after she made contact again. This communications failure therefore cost the resident further time and trouble.
The landlord also advised the resident on 2 June 2023 that it “should” be responsible for any repairs reported while she was a tenant. This change of decision and lack of clarity caused her frustration and inconvenience because her expectations had been raised. She continued to contact the landlord and contractor for clarification because she was given no further explanation regarding the landlord’s reason for the decision. This cost her time and trouble and meant that there was a delay in her getting the work carried out herself.
The landlord has since advised this Service that it did not complete the reboarding and replastering because “there was no damage to the wall finishes or skirtings other than water staining”. However, this was contradictory to the opinion of the contractor who saw the damage first hand. The landlord also did not communicate this to the resident. Had the landlord advised the resident that this was the reason it was not completing the work at the time, she could have provided further evidence of the damage. This was a communications failure by the landlord that caused the resident further distress and inconvenience.
Due to the failings identified there was service failure in the landlord’s handling of repairs following a burst pipe under the bath.

The landlord’s complaint handling.

The landlord’s complaints policy says that it will acknowledge stage 1 complaints within 5 working days and that a response will be provided within 20 working days (plus 10 working days for complex cases). The Housing Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code in place at the time (the Code) said, “landlords must respond to the complaint within 10 working days of the complaint being logged. Exceptionally, landlords may provide an explanation to the resident containing a clear timeframe for when the response will be received. This should not exceed a further 10 days without good reason.”
The Code also said that “a complaint should be resolved at the earliest possible opportunity, having assessed what evidence is needed to fully consider the issues, what outcome would resolve the matter for the resident and whether there are any urgent actions required”.
This Service has seen no evidence that the landlord acknowledged the resident’s stage 1 complaint and it took 96 working days to respond to it. This delay meant that it did not use the complaints process to help bring an early resolution to the issues that the resident raised, which caused further frustration to the resident and cost her time and trouble because she continued to contact the landlord in the meantime for answers.
The landlords’ complaints policy says that it will respond to stage 2 complaints within 20 working days (plus 10 working days for complex cases). However, it took 139 working days to respond. Again, this delay meant that it did not use the complaints process to bring the problem to a quicker conclusion and to keep the resident informed about what it was doing to resolve matters. This complaint handling failure cost the resident further time and trouble because she continued to contact the landlord for updates. The long delays in both stages of the complaints process also caused the resident detriment because it delayed her access to an investigation by this Service.
The landlord showed no empathy for the resident’s situation in its stage 1 or stage 2 complaint responses. It apologised for the problems the resident had experienced but not for the length of time it had taken to respond to the complaint. It also offered no redress for the situation the resident had been living in for a long period. The landlord has not provided this Service with a copy of the compensation policy in place at the time of the complaint, however it has provided a later version which highlights options for offering compensation in similar circumstances to those experienced by the resident. However, the landlord did not consider compensation in this case. These complaint handling failures caused the resident distress and inconvenience because she felt that the landlord did not appreciate how living in such conditions affected her.
The landlord sent the stage 2 complaint via its customer feedback system on 30 September 2023, but the resident was not aware of this. She contacted the landlord on 8 October 2023 to ask when she would receive the response but the landlord did not tell her that it had already sent the response and where to find it. It was only when she contacted the landlord again on 30 October 2023 that it advised her where to locate the response. The landlord’s lack of communication regarding how it had sent the response and its lack of response to the resident’s enquiry cost her further time and trouble and again delayed her access to an investigation by this Service.
In its stage 2 complaints response the landlord said that it would continue to monitor the leaking balcony and that it would carry out further work to reline the drain if similar work on another balcony was successful. It named an officer that would liaise with residents in the block to progress work as required.
However, this Service has seen no evidence that the landlord kept this promise and the resident has advised us that the landlord has not updated her since the stage 2 complaint response. This is despite the landlord providing evidence that relining of the drain on another section of the balcony was successful in resolving the leak on another property. The landlord advised this Service that it was not aware that there were any further issues with the leaking balcony between the stage 2 complaint and February 2024. This is despite evidence that the resident emailed it twice in January and the fact that the landlord had promised that a named officer would liaise with residents to resolve the ongoing issue.
Due to the failings identified there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of water ingress from a balcony above the property.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was service failure in the landlord’s handling of repairs following a burst pipe under the bath.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

Orders and recommendations

Within 28 days of the date of this report the landlord must:
Pay the resident directly a total of £1,050 in compensation. Any compensation already paid should be deducted from this amount. Compensation is broken down as follows:
1. £500 for distress and inconvenience.
2. £400 for time and trouble.
3. £150 for complaint handling.
Apologise to the resident. A senior manager should apologise to the resident in writing for the failings in this case.
Liaise with the resident on a fortnightly basis regarding the effectiveness of the repairs work that has recently been carried out and to discuss any further work that may be required. This should be completed by a named officer that the resident can contact directly.
Replaster the ceilings in the lounge and kitchen and replace the light fittings once the leak is resolved and the area is dry. This to be completed within 2 months.
Review the advice it, and its contractors, give to right to buy applicants with regards to repairs. Update the website and online tenant’s handbook accordingly. This to be completed within 2 months of the date of this report.
Undertake a review of post inspection processes to determine the effectiveness of works carried out to seal leaks, such as in this case. This to be completed within 3 months of the date of this report.
Provide this Service with a copy of its updated repairs policy. This to be completed within 3 months of the date of this report.
The landlord must provide the Ombudsman with evidence of compliance with these orders by the above deadlines.