Milton Keynes City Council (202320226)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202320226

Milton Keynes City Council

17 September 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. The boiler replacement.
2. Disrepair at the property.
The Ombudsman has also investigated the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

The resident has been a secure tenant of the landlord, a local authority, since 2005. The property is a 3 bedroom house. The landlord is aware that the resident has physical and mental health issues.

Summary of events

In early December 2022, the resident reported issues with the front door. The landlord raised a routine works order and noted that it attended 3 days later and overhauled the door.
On 25 April 2023, the landlord attended to complete the annual gas safety check and condemned the boiler.
A week later, the landlord raised a works order to replace the boiler. Its contractor attended on 17 May 2023 and subsequently said it could not complete this because of the condition of the property. It told the resident to make contact once the property was cleared.
The same month, a legal letter of disrepair claim was sent to the landlord by the resident’s solicitor. It raised issues with the boiler, windows, cracks and gaps in the walls and ceilings caused by movement, asbestos, damp and mould and an unstable staircase. It said these issues had been present since the resident moved in to the property. The letter stated that she reported these around 30 times, but no action had been taken.
In July 2023, the resident’s solicitor’s expert inspected the property. They noted that all of the issues raised in the legal letter of claim were identified and recommended works to address these. This included a structural engineer’s report to assess for possible subsidence. A decant was required and the works would take 7 weeks to complete.
The same month, the landlord inspected the property and the subsequent report noted that:
1. It had been unable to access all parts of the property to inspect the alleged disrepair. This was due to the resident’s belongings covering the external walls and floors. It recommended that the resident clear the property and once done, a further inspection be carried out.
2. There were gaps between the ceiling and walls and cracks in the staircase. These were hairline cracks and not deemed to be disrepair. There were no faults found with the staircase.
3. The boiler had been condemned. On further investigation, the landlord identified that it had been unable to complete the replacement due to the condition of the property. The resident had been told to clear the area and contact the contractor once done, but she had not done this.
4. There was condensation and mould on the windows in 2 of the bedrooms, which was due to a lack of ventilation.
5. The only asbestos present was in the artex coated ceilings in the bedrooms and 1 of the bathrooms. There was no damage to this, so not a concern and no action was required.
6. There was no damp and mould in the toilet or the bathroom. There was no window in the toilet but this was the way the property was constructed and not classified as disrepair. There were no extractor fans in either the toilet or the bathroom and it recommended installing these.
7. During the inspection the resident raised concerns about the electrical circuit in the kitchen, since a new kitchen had been installed in June 2022. Every time she connected her white goods to the sockets, the circuit tripped on the main consumer unit. The landlord advised she would need to source her own operative to check her white goods.
8. The repairs identified would cause minimal disruption and the resident could remain in the property for the duration of the works, which would be around 4 weeks. She would need to clear all areas of the property before works could begin.
On 17 August 2023, the landlord visited the resident and asked her to clean the property. Once this was done, she could arrange an appointment for the contractor to attend and replace the boiler. The resident contacted the contractor that day and confirmed the area was clear.
The landlord installed a new boiler on 21 September 2023.
The following month, the landlord told the resident it would attend on 18 October 2023 to carry out disrepair works. The landlord has said that the resident did not give access for these works to go ahead.
On 1 November 2023, the resident reported leaks in the bathroom and bedroom. The landlord raised a routine works order and noted that it attended on 13 November 2023 and completed works to resolve the leaks, including a toilet leak.
On 8 November 2023, the resident reported that the front door had moved over time due to subsidence and she was struggling to close this. The landlord raised a routine works order and attended 6 days later. It noted that it adjusted the door so that it closed and locked properly.
In early December 2023, the resident told this Service that the landlord had refused to decant her and carry out works recommended in the expert report.
On 6 December 2023, this Service asked the landlord to respond to the resident’s complaint about disrepair throughout the property. This included subsidence, an unsafe boiler, asbestos and its failure to provide financial compensation for repair and redecoration costs incurred. The landlord acknowledged the complaint the next day and told the resident it would respond within 20 working days.
In January 2024, the landlord replied to the legal letter of disrepair claim. It denied liability on the basis that the resident had not reported many of the alleged disrepair issues. While she had said she had reported the issues over a 6 year period, she had not provided dates on which she made these reports. Where issues had been reported, these had been attended within a reasonable timeframe. It had been unable to carry out works to replace the boiler after it was condemned due to the condition of the property. It was the resident’s responsibility to re-raise this job once she had cleared the area, but she had not done so. It had reinstated the job following its inspection.
On 26 February 2024, the landlord provided its stage 1 complaint response. Following investigation no subsidence was found and the asbestos in the property was not a cause for concern, as it was undamaged. A new boiler had been installed and it was working with her to gain access to investigate further concerns she had reported about the pipes and taps. Her legal representative was negotiating an outcome, including any compensation, and she should raise any concerns in relation to this with them.
The next day the resident said she did not believe that the landlord had inspected the property and found there were no issues. It had received reports confirming the poor condition of the property but had ignored these. She could not allow this to continue as her health was being affected by the condition of the property. The landlord replied asking what parts of the stage 1 response she was challenging so it could review this.
In February and March 2024, the resident contacted the landlord on 2 occasions about her complaint.
On 1 March 2024, the landlord’s specialist cleaning contractor attended a pre-arranged appointment to help the resident clear the property. It noted that no access was given.
On 24 March 2024 at approximately 12pm, the resident reported a wire in a fuse box was sparking, causing no power upstairs. The landlord raised an emergency works order and noted it attended at approximately 4:30pm and completed works to resolve this.
In early April 2024, the resident told this Service that repairs were still outstanding in her property.
On 3 April 2024, this Service asked the landlord to escalate the resident’s complaint to stage 2. The complaint was regarding subsidence, asbestos and disrepair throughout the property, which included a toilet leak, no window or extractor fan in the bathroom or toilet, doors and windows, cracks in the ceilings, unsafe electrical wiring and faulty electrical sockets in the kitchen.
In May 2024, on at least 3 occasions the resident and this Service asked the landlord for a response to the stage 2 complaint.
The same month, the resident’s solicitors told the landlord it was chasing instructions from the resident, but had been unable to get hold of her to arrange dates for the works to go ahead.
On 14 May 2024 at approximately 5:45pm, the landlord raised an emergency works for unsafe electrical wiring. It noted that it attended at approximately 6:05pm and that there were no dangerous cables or wiring, the wiring had been done correctly and all sockets were working.
The landlord provided the stage 2 complaint response on 15 May 2024, which said:
1. It apologised for the delay in responding to the complaint and offered £50 compensation in recognition of this.
2. No subsidence had been identified at the property and a toilet leak was fixed on 13 November 2023.
3. It had attempted to complete works to the electrical wiring but had been unable to gain access to the property. It was trying to arrange access and asked her to engage to allow this.
4. It had recommended all white goods were tested in relation to her concerns about the faulty electrical sockets in the kitchen. As the white goods were not part of the fixtures and fittings of the property, this would be her responsibility to arrange.
5. It was continuing to work with her and her legal representatives to offer dates to progress the outstanding disrepair works. It had found no evidence of service failure in its handling of the works to her home. There had been a number of occasions where she had not granted access for works to be completed. The repair works to the property did not require a temporary decant.
On 19 June 2024, the landlord attended the resident’s property to carry out repairs and noted no access was given. It subsequently provided future dates and asked her to confirm when it could attend.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

The resident has reported that some of the repair issues have been outstanding since she moved in to the property. Complaints should be brought to the attention of the landlord within a reasonable time of the problem occurring, usually within 12 months. This is so that the landlord has an opportunity to resolve the issues while they are still ‘live’ and the evidence is available to properly investigate them (reflected at paragraph 42(c) of the Scheme).
In this case the resident’s formal complaint was raised, in December 2023, therefore, the scope of this investigation has included events 12 months prior to this. Anything that happened before December 2022, will be considered for context but not assessed or determined as part of the investigation.
The resident has told this Service that these matters have negatively affected her health. The Ombudsman does not doubt the resident’s comments; however, it is beyond the remit of this Service to make a determination on whether there was a direct link between the landlord’s actions and the resident’s ill-health.
The resident may wish to seek independent advice on making a personal injury claim if she considers that her health has been affected by any action or failure by the landlord (reflected at paragraph 42(f) of the Scheme). While the Ombudsman cannot consider the effect on health, consideration has been given to any general distress and inconvenience which the resident experienced as a result of any service failure by the landlord.
As part of the stage 2 escalation request in April 2024, the resident reported concerns about insulation and damage to walls and ceilings in the living room. From the evidence provided, there is no record that these issues were reported prior to this. The landlord responded to these new concerns within the stage 2 response, however, as this was the first time the issues were reported, this was not a complaint but a service request. Therefore, these issues fall outside the scope of this investigation. If the resident is dissatisfied with the landlord’s response to these concerns, she can raise a formal complaint with the landlord for investigation.

Handling of the boiler replacement

The landlord is responsible for repairs to the boiler under the terms of the tenancy agreement. This says that the landlord will keep in repair space and water heating. Where a boiler cannot be repaired, the landlord is responsible for replacing this.
After the landlord condemned the boiler, it attended in 23 days to complete the replacement. As scaffolding was required in order to access the flue as part of the job, this timescale was reasonable. While reasonable, the resident was left without heating and hot water for this period and so it would have been appropriate for the landlord to offer temporary heating. However, there is no record that it did this and this amounts to maladministration.
While the replacement did not go ahead at the initial appointment, this was not due to any fault by the landlord. The landlord’s contractor said it could not complete the job during the initial visit, because of the condition of the property. While frustrating for the resident, the landlord’s contractor was entitled to reach this conclusion.
It is noted that the resident has disputed that the property was in poor condition, however, as the Ombudsman was not present during the visit, we are unable to make a retrospective assessment of the condition. It was reasonable that the landlord relied on the feedback from its contractor, that it could not complete the replacement because of the condition of the property.
It was reasonable that the landlord’s contractor asked the resident to clear the area, in order to allow it to complete the boiler replacement. However, after it did this, there is no record that the landlord did anything else until around 2 months later, when it inspected the property.
While it was the resident’s responsibility to clear the area to allow the works to go ahead, the landlord should have pro-actively followed up with her after the initial visit to ensure she was progressing with this. This was particularly important in this case, as the landlord was aware that the resident had physical and mental health issues. Also because of the nature of the works required, she had no heating and hot water supply.
After the landlord inspected the property in July 2023, it was a further month before it attended to follow up regarding the condition of the property. It was then another month before the boiler replacement was completed. In total, it took the landlord 5 months to complete the boiler replacement. This was too long, considering the urgency of the job.
While some of the delay was not attributable to the landlord, it should have been more pro-active in following up with the resident regarding the condition of the property, in order to progress the works as quickly as possible. Its failure to do this amounts to maladministration and meant the resident was left without heating and hot water for an extended period of time. Orders have been made below for the landlord to apologise to the resident and pay her £250 compensation.
A further order has been made for the landlord to share learning from this complaint with staff on the management of repairs that are delayed due to poor property condition, including the need for pro-active follow up and monitoring.

Handling of disrepair at the property

The landlord is responsible for repairs to the structure and exterior of the property in accordance with the terms of the tenancy agreement. This includes windows, doors, walls and ceilings, the staircase, the toilet and electrics.
The resident has raised concerns about possible subsidence at the property. As this is a potential structural issue, the landlord would be responsible for investigating and addressing this.
The landlord is responsible for addressing damp and mould in line with section 9(a) of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985. This says that it has an obligation to ensure the property is fit for human habitation during the term of the tenancy, in relation to freedom from damp.
From the evidence provided, the only disrepair issues reported from December 2022 until July 2023, when the legal letter of disrepair claim was received, were in relation to the door and the boiler (which has been assessed separately above). The Ombudsman has seen no evidence that the resident reported any of the other alleged disrepair issues under investigation, during this period. Under the terms of the tenancy, the resident is required to report any repairs, faults or damage to the landlord as soon as possible. It is reasonable that the landlord is not responsible for taking action to address issues, that have not been reported to it.
The resident has said that many of these issues have been ongoing since she moved in to the property and that she has reported these on many occasions. The Ombudsman does not doubt the resident’s comments; however, from the evidence provided for the period of this investigation, there is no record that she reported the majority of these issues. Therefore, there is no evidence of any failure by the landlord to respond to the resident’s reports of disrepair at the property (excluding the boiler), prior to July 2023.
It is noted that the resident’s solicitor’s expert report and the landlord’s surveyor’s report differ in respect of the severity of the disrepair and actions required to address this. While frustrating for the resident, it was reasonable that the landlord relied on its own expert’s opinion to inform its actions. The resident has raised concerns that the landlord has doctored the surveyor’s report; however, the Ombudsman has seen no evidence to support this.
The resident has reported cracks in the property, which she believes are caused by subsidence. However, the landlord has assessed these as being hairline cracks, caused by normal movement. While frustrating for the resident, it was reasonable that the landlord relied on its own expert’s opinion and did not progress a further structural survey of the property. The landlord’s repairs policy says that resident’s are responsible for small patch repairs to ceilings or walls. Therefore, it is reasonable that these would be the resident’s responsibility to address.
When the resident reported that she had problems with the front door in December 2022 and November 2023, the landlord attended in 3 and 6 days and completed repairs. This was reasonable and in line with its routine repair response time of 28 days. On both occasions, the landlord noted that it was able to resolve the issues by easing and adjusting the door, and no further concerns in relation to subsidence were noted. Therefore, it was reasonable that no further action was taken to investigate this concern on either of these occasions.
As part of the landlord’s inspection in July 2023, it assessed the resident’s concerns about asbestos in the property. While the surveyor was not a specialist asbestos contractor, they were a qualified surveyor and therefore, reasonable that they would have sufficient knowledge of asbestos to assess the resident’s concerns.
While asbestos containing material (ACM) was present in the property, the landlord noted it was undamaged. According to the Health and Safety Executive (HSE), ACM in good condition is considered safe unless asbestos fibres become airborne, which happens when materials become damaged. Therefore, it was reasonable that the landlord left the ACM’s in the property and took no further action in respect of this issue.
In November 2023, the landlord attended and took action to address leaks, including a toilet leak in 13 days. This was reasonable and in line with its routine repair response target of 28 days. The resident raised concerns about a toilet leak as part of her stage 2 escalation in April 2024, however, there is no record that she reported any other toilet leaks prior to this.
When the resident raised concerns about electrics at the property in March 2024, the landlord raised an emergency works order. This was reasonable and in line with its repairs policy, which says that dangerous electrical issues would be classified as emergency repairs. The landlord commits to attend emergency repairs within 4 hours and on this occasion, the landlord recorded that it attended in around 4 and a half hours. While slightly over the committed response time, this was still a reasonable response time and not considered a failing by the landlord.
As part of the resident’s stage 2 escalation in early April 2024, she raised concerns about unsafe electrics in the property. However, there is no evidence that the landlord took action in respect of this until nearly 6 weeks later. This was unreasonable and amounts to maladministration. It is noted that the stage 2 response said that the landlord had attempted to complete works to the electrical wiring but had been unable to gain access to the property; however, the Ombudsman has seen no evidence of this.
When the landlord did raise a works order in relation to the resident’s report of unsafe electrics in May 2024, it raised this as an emergency and noted that it attended in less than an hour. This was reasonable and in line with the committed response time set out in its repairs policy.
From the records provided, the first time the resident reported concerns about damp and mould was in the legal letter of disrepair claim. The landlord assessed this concern as part of its inspection the same month. This was sensible to enable it to understand the extent of the issue and any underlying causes.
The landlord noted that no damp and mould was present in the toilet or bathroom; however, it identified that there was a lack of ventilation in these areas, which could potentially lead to damp and mould. It recommended installing extractor fans, which was sensible and showed that it was taking the matter seriously.
In July 2023, the landlord noted there was mould present on some of the windows; which was caused by a lack of ventilation. While this was a reasonable assessment to make, there is no record that the landlord gave the resident any advice about how to treat or address this, which would have been sensible. This amounts to maladministration and an order has been made below for the landlord to provide written advice to the resident on action she can take to reduce damp and mould in the property.
The landlord raised a works order for the disrepair works in September 2023 and since then it has attempted to arrange appointments via the resident’s solicitors and attended at least 2 pre-arranged appointments. Despite this, the works identified remain outstanding, however, this delay is not attributable to the landlord.
The landlord has told the resident that it needs to clean the property before any works can be undertaken. The Ombudsman has not seen the current condition of the property so is unable to make an assessment of this. However, the photographs taken during the inspection in July 2023 support the landlord’s assessment of the condition of the property. It is reasonable that if the condition had not improved since then, that the landlord should offer practical support to the resident in order to make this happen so that the required works can be carried out.
Similarly, the landlord has committed that a further inspection would be undertaken to investigate issues it had been unable to fully look in to, including the windows. While concerning that this has not yet happened, the delay in this is not attributable to the landlord. It is again reasonable that the landlord has offered additional support to improve the condition of the property, so that it can progress with this follow up inspection.
The resident has told this Service that she has declined the landlord’s offer of help to clean the property as its cleaning contractor had previously attended and said there was no issue. The evidence provided does not show this and only shows that a previous visit by this contractor resulted in no access being given. The resident disputes this; however, it was reasonable that the landlord accepted its contractors feedback on the outcome of the visit.
It is important that the landlord can carry out the required works and fully investigate all issues and the resident is encouraged to allow its cleaning contractor to attend in order to support her to enable this to happen. Therefore, an order has been made below for the landlord to contact the resident to agree a further appointment for its cleaning contractor to attend and provide details of what will happen during this visit.
The Ombudsman recognises that this has been a challenging situation for the landlord. While its handling of the majority of the issues was reasonable, there was maladministration in its handling of disrepair, specifically in relation to the electrics and the damp and mould. Therefore, an order has been made below for the landlord to pay the resident £250 compensation.

Complaint handling

The landlord acknowledged the resident’s stage 1 complaint in 1 working day. This was in line with its complaints policy at the time that said it would acknowledge complaints within 5 working days. However, the Ombudsman has seen no evidence that the landlord acknowledged the resident’s stage 2 complaint, and this amounts to maladministration.
The landlord provided the stage 1 response in 56 working days and the stage 2 in 54 working days. These were over the committed response times of 20 working days for stage 1 and 2 responses, set out in its complaints policy at the time. This amounts to maladministration and made the resident feel that the landlord was not taking the complaint seriously.
It was sensible of the landlord to ask for further detail about what parts of the stage 1 response the resident disagreed with, in response to her initial escalation request dated 27 February 2024. This would enable the landlord to provide a detailed response to the resident’s ongoing concerns.
The evidence provided shows that the resident sent further emails about the complaint to the landlord in February and March 2024. While the Ombudsman has not seen the contents of these emails, it is satisfied that these were sent as the resident received auto-acknowledgement emails, which have been seen by this Service. These committed that a response would be provided within 5 days; however, there is no record that this happened on either occasion, which was disappointing for the resident.
It is not clear what additional information the resident provided to the landlord in February and March 2024, however, this Service provided sufficient detail about the ongoing concerns in early April 2023 in order for a full response to be provided. Despite this, the landlord did not respond to the stage 2 complaint until 30 working days later. This was over the committed response time of 20 working days set out in its complaints policy at the time; and was only after 3 further contacts from the resident and this Service chasing a response.
Overall, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint. Both responses were delayed and while the landlord may have required additional information to respond to the stage 2 complaint, it still took too long to do so, even after this information was provided. It was only with multiple repeat contacts from the resident and this Service, that a final response was provided.
The landlord acknowledged that its complaint handling was delayed as part of its final response. It apologised and offered compensation, which was in line with the Ombudsman’s dispute resolution principles to put things right and learn from outcomes.
The landlord offered £50 compensation in respect of its complaint handling; however, considering the full circumstances of this matter, this is considered insufficient. Therefore, in consultation with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance, an order has been made below for the landlord to pay the resident £300, inclusive of the £50 already offered, if not done so already.
A further order has also been made for the landlord to provide staff training on complaint handling, unless it can demonstrate that it has trained relevant staff on this subject since this complaint completed its internal complaints procedure.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of:
1. The boiler replacement.
2. Disrepair at the property.
3. The formal complaint.

Orders

Within 4 weeks, the landlord is ordered to:
1. Apologise to the resident for its handling of the boiler replacement.
2. Pay the resident £800 compensation, made up of £250 for its handling of the boiler replacement, £250 for its handling of disrepair at the property and £300 for its complaint handling (including the £50 already offered, if not done so already).
3. Share learning from this complaint with relevant repair handling staff and/ or teams, on the management of repairs that are delayed due to poor property condition, including the need for pro-active follow up and monitoring.
4. Provide written advice to the resident on actions she can take to reduce damp and mould in the property.
5. Contact the resident to agree a further appointment for its cleaning contractor to attend and provide details of what will happen during this visit. A written confirmation of the appointment to be sent to the resident.
The landlord to provide evidence of compliance with the above orders, to this Service, within 4 weeks.
In accordance with paragraph 54(g) of the Scheme, within 8 weeks, the landlord is ordered to provide staff training to relevant complaint handling staff and/ or teams on complaint handling timescales and escalations, in line with the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code. Evidence of compliance to be provided to this Service, within 8 weeks.