Milton Keynes Council (201910370)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 201910370

Milton Keynes Council

28 January 2021

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 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 resident complains about:
1. How the landlord handled repairs reported, including:
  1. how the landlord handled reports of damp in June 2018;
  2. how the landlord handled repairs required in 2019 and a decant; and
  3. the information provided by the landlord in relation to the works .
2. How the landlord handled her claim for compensation for belongings damaged by the damp.
3. How the landlord handled her complaint.

Background and summary of events

The resident is a secure tenant of a one-bedroom ground floor flat (the property).
On 18 January 2018, the resident requesting the landlord inspect the property due to various repair issues, including damp in the living room and bedroom.
The landlord’s repair records evidence that it raised the following works orders:
1. 26 January 2018: fungal wash and stain block for the lounge and bedroom. This is noted as completed on 21 February 2018.
2. 20 July 2018: installation of new kitchen. This is marked as completed on 14 February 2019.
The landlord’s contact records of 15 June 2018 refer to it communicating internally about “flood damage to bedroom and cupboard next to bedroom”. There is a further entry dated 13 July 2018 stating “Tried calling tenant to arrange flood inspection however the tenant hung up before I could discuss”.
The landlord’s repair records also include an entry of 15 April 2019 which refers to a report of a leak from the flat above and a request to inspect mould and damp in the kitchen. The notes state that a calling card was left with the private tenant above. On 29 May 2019, the resident telephoned the landlord to chase up a call in relation to a leak in the property from a neighbouring flat.
On 19 June 2019, the resident raised a complaint with the landlord. She said that the landlord’s contractors had fitted a kitchen to the property in February 2019 to wet plasterboard. She referred to a leak from the flat above and said that the kitchen was now mostly unusable, referring to damp in cupboards, and the kitchen and bathroom ceilings. She referred to the bedroom having been flooded and damp to the living room. She said the contractors “mildew washed” the walls. She said the cupboard containing the water tank was unusable due to damp. The resident requested that someone other than the current contractors attend the property to complete works.
On 4 July 2019, the landlord offered to visit the property in response to her complaint. An appointment was arranged for the landlord and the contractor to attend the property on 12 July 2019.
On 18 July 2019, the contractor responded to the resident’s complaint. It apologised for the time taken to investigate the complaint. It said that following a visit to the property with the landlord, it was working in partnership to resolve the issues. The contractors said the landlord would contact the housing association to resolve the leak from their property and she would be kept updated. It advised that once the leak was repaired, it would begin the repairs required to the property. It advised her how to escalate her complaint to stage two if she was dissatisfied with the response.
The resident has informed the Ombudsman that she did not receive this letter.
On 22 July 2019, the landlord informed the resident that it had chased up the housing association in relation to a leak from the flat above into the property. On 30 August 2019, the landlord informed the resident that it had met with a representative for the housing association and visited the flat above. It said that there was no longer a leak from the flat above therefore it was ready to carry out repairs to the property. It requested dates when it could visit the property.
On 11 September 2019, the landlord emailed the resident listing the works it wanted to carry out to the property stating these would take about four weeks. It asked if she anywhere to stay during this period as they would require her to move out.
On 19 September 2019, the resident contacted the landlord requesting a reduction in rent due to the repair issues.
On 24 September 2019, the resident asked the landlord if it had arranged for Environmental Health (EH) to take samples of the mould in the kitchen and in the cupboard with the water tank. She said that if there was mould in the tank, she wanted to know if it had impacted her health. The landlord agreed to look into this.
On 28 October 2019, the landlord completed a temporary accommodation request form and work was scheduled to start on 11 November 2019. The works listed as required included an asbestos survey, electrical check, investigation of damp issue in the water tank cupboard, bathroom refurbishment, heating system replacement, conversion of property to mains fed water, replacing damaged wall units in the kitchen, replacing floor coverings, and decoration in the kitchen, lounge, hallway and bedroom.
On 5 November 2019, the landlord emailed the resident advising that it had arranged a removal company to assist her and she should liaise with them directly. It said that the accommodation was temporary and she would return to the property within five weeks of 11 November 2019. It advised that she would not be paying electricity at two properties as she would only actively be occupying one property. It offered to arrange a voucher or electricity of £30 to be charged onto the electricity key. It also said that one of the reasons for decanting her was because of the disturbance and disruption that would take place.
On 18 November 2019, the resident emailed the landlord saying that she had not yet received a response to her complaint from June 2019. She requested the landlord follow its complaints procedure and provide copies of any letters sent. She also requested it include detail of the EH tests that were done. She requested the landlord direct her to a “complaints liaison” to help her resolve various issues including with the temporary accommodation. She said she was finding it difficult communicating across different departments.
The landlord acknowledged this email stating it would ask the complaints team about her complaint and it would respond to the questions in her email as soon as possible. On 21 November 2019, the landlord responded to the resident attaching the complaint response of 18 July 2019 and said that it would contact her separately with the EH information she had requested. It said if she had outstanding concerns she could request these be reinvestigated at stage two of its complaints process.
On 2 December 2019, the resident stated that she would respond in detail with all the reasons she felt unfairly treated but requested time to compile this. She requested in the meantime the landlord:
1. Send an updated complaint response with details of the complaint and “times/dates and solution and time expected to resolve, since this letter/email was sent”.
2. Provide details of how she could reclaim expenses for loss of furniture and belongings and inconvenience caused. She said she could provide a doctor’s letter and information from her employer in relation to the time she had taken off work.
3. Provide a date when she could return to the property, how she could get the keys and confirm the removal details.
The landlord responded that it had logged her complaint but awaited the further information she wished to share. It said that until it had all the details of the complaint it could not send a further formal response, but that it would contact her separately to discuss her concerns about returning to the property.
On 6 December 2019, the resident informed the landlord she had the keys to the temporary accommodation to return. The landlord agreed to collect them on 9 December 2019. On 11 December 2019, the resident informed the landlord she had not heard about the key collection and nor had not received anything in writing in relation to returning to the property. She said that information she had requested had not been given and she would no longer pursue this as she was “wasting” her time. She did however refer to the stress caused by the events and said she hoped to have some kind of explanation and, apology and compensation for furniture money spent on moving (she had no cooker), time taken off work and stress caused.
The landlord apologised for not collecting the key and agreed she could leave them out for collection. It offered to meet with her if there were any issues it could help with but said it understood her “need to take forward in an official way”. It asked if she wanted another insurance form sent out.
On 12 December 2019, the resident informed the landlord that she had not received an insurance form previously and requested one be sent out. She said the landlord should have advised her how to claim for damaged items before she moved back. She also said she was waiting to receive details of the reasons she was put in temporary accommodation and the final outcome and “perhaps an apology for the inconvenience”.
On 30 December 2019, the resident requested up–to–date rent accounts for both properties. She referred to having to vacate the property and pay for microwave meals, take-aways and replacing belongings when she returned to the property due to them being covered in mould. She said she still had her bed base which was mouldy and attached a photo.
On 31 December 2019, the landlord agreed to cover the rent for the temporary accommodation for the period she was decanted, since this was higher than the weekly rent for the property.
On 10 February 2020, the resident emailed the landlord requesting a review to the complaint listing the following issues:
1. Detail of all repairs required at the property and dates.
2. Detail of all required works required.
3. Explanation as to why she was required to move to temporary accommodation.
4. Why the contractors did not investigate where the flood came from in response to her report of June 2018 and why they fitted a kitchen to a wet wall.
5. She requested a timeline from the reported incident to repairs completion.
On 2 March 2020, the Ombudsman contacted the landlord requesting it respond to the stage two complaint.
On 24 March 2020, the landlord emailed the resident apologising for the delay in responding to the Stage two complaint. The landlord said it was compiling a list of all the works undertaken and completed in the property and would provide this by the end of the week.
On 27 March 2020, the resident emailed again chasing a response to her complaint. She said she would be purchasing a new bed instead of paying rent. She said all other belongings had to be thrown away due to mould. She provided photos of the bed. She also said that the emergency accommodation had no carpets, curtains, and her sofa would not fit so she was left sitting on cold floor for a weekend. She said there was no cooker and she had to arrange an electric key and purchase electricity at both properties.
On 1 April 2020, the landlord provided a Stage two response to the complaint. The landlord acknowledged that there had a been a delay in responding to the complaint, noted that it had in part been caused by how the complaint was composed, but agreed it could have been responded to earlier. The landlord listed the resident’s complaints as:
1. Past disrepair which led to her being decanted temporarily.
2. Current leak from the flat above.
3. The recently installed kitchen units were fitted to wet plasterboard between the kitchen and bathroom and most of the kitchen was unusable with damp in the cupboard and across the kitchen/bathroom ceilings. New cupboards were decaying.
4. Request for compensation for damage to food items, clothing, bed, furniture and for inconvenience caused and time lost.
5. The landlord had failed to provide a loss claim.
6. Request for details of repairs required to the property and dates.
7. Request for explanation as to why she was required to move temporarily.
8. Request for explanation as to why the contractors did not investigate where the leak had come from in June 2018 and why they had fitted a kitchen to a wet wall.
9. A timeline for the reported incidents to completion of works.
In response, the landlord said that the previous repairs had been addressed and the matter closed. In response to current repair issues, it would need to attend the property to inspect and remedy any faults. The landlord requested the resident provide a list of the damaged items and their value and details of the alleged lost time working. It said it had enclosed a loss claim form.
The landlord referred to an enclosed appendix in relation to the repairs required. The landlord has provided a copy of this to the Ombudsman and it lists various works (although does not include any dates). The landlord explained that the resident was asked to move because of the impact of the works required. It said it had provided her with a sofa, mattress, removal services and storage, and water testing totaling £1775.99.
In relation to the contractor’s actions in 2018, the landlord said that this was a valid issue and acknowledged the inconvenience caused. The landlord acknowledged that, in error, the kitchen unit was fitted before an investigation of the leak was undertaken. This was subsequently remedied, the leak repaired, and new kitchen units fitted. The landlord said it did not have a timeline of reported incidents and due to current operational issues, it was unlikely to be made available soon.
The landlord concluded that it upheld the complaint about the delay in responding to the complaint and in response to the request for compensation, requested she provide the details and said this would be considered.
The resident responded saying she would seek advice from the Ombudsman. She said she felt that the contractor should supply details of the repairs completed and why they were required as this would give the landlord and herself evidence of why the damage to her belongings was caused.
The resident has informed the Ombudsman that there remain some snagging issues at the property following the works. She referred to taking lots of annual leave to accommodate the works. On 8 September 2020, the resident informed the Ombudsman that there might be a further leak from the property above. She also contacted the landlord about this.
The resident has also informed the Ombudsman that there was a leak from an exterior wall into the property, which the contractors inspected in May 2018 but did not repair and that it was this leak which led to the decant being required. She has also informed the Ombudsman that she did not make an insurance claim at the time of the landlords’ final complaint response because she did not know how to and what she could claim for. Further, that the claim form was not attached to the final complaint response.

Assessment and findings

Tenancy terms and landlord policies

Under the terms of the tenancy agreement, the landlord’s obligations include to keep the property in good condition by repairing and maintaining the structure and exterior of the dwelling. The tenancy agreement states that the landlord will do repairs in a reasonable time and how long this will take depends on how urgent the repair is.
The landlord’s website states that emergency repairs will be made safe within four hours (if the repair is assessed as affecting the safety and security of the property). Routine repairs will be given a repair appointment within 28 days of being reported.
The landlord’s Decant policy states that for tenants decanted into self-contained accommodation, the landlord may help with the provision of essential items such as white goods or beds, in cases where the welfare of the tenant would otherwise be at risk. In addition, customers who are temporarily moved may be entitled to a discretionary disturbance allowance, to compensate the tenant for the costs they have incurred by their displacement, equal to the reasonable expenses associated with the move. Disturbance payments will only be paid when evidenced by receipts or bills. Examples of costs or arrangements it might cover include removal/storage costs, removal and refitting of fixtures and fittings in the decant property such as curtain rails, disconnection and reconnection of cooker and washing machine (and the same items upon return to the original property).
The policy states further that the landlord may have to meet some or all of the costs of floor coverings for the decant property, an electric cooker, the re-direction of mail allowance and the difference between the Council Tax on the original home and decant property if it is greater at the decant property. The policy states that these are the most common costs incurred however all reasonable costs will be considered.
In terms of compensation, landlord’s Complaints policy states that an ex gratia payment may be made in goodwill to settle complaints and this should be discussed with the Corporate Customer Feedback Manager, taking into account the local Government and Social Care Ombudsman’s Guidance on good practice Remedies.

Assessment: How the landlord handled repairs reported

The resident complained about how the landlord handled the damp issues identified in 2018. The evidence available confirms that resident reported damp on 18 January 2018, the landlord arranged a mould wash in February 2018 and identified a new kitchen was needed in July 2018. This was fitted in February 2019. The resident has informed the Ombudsman that she believes there was an external leak into the property in 2018 which the contractors failed to remedy. There is no evidence to confirm this although the landlord’s records do refer to flood damage in June/July 2018.
When responding to the complaint, the landlord acknowledged that the resident’s complaint about the contractor’s action in 2018 was a “valid issue”. The landlord acknowledged that the contractors had incorrectly fitted a kitchen before investigating the leak, but this was subsequently remedied.
The Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles are:
1. Be fair – treat people fairly and follow fair processes
2. Put things right
3. Learn from outcomes
When responding to this aspect of the complaint, the landlord acted appropriately by acknowledging that there was a shortcoming and that this caused inconvenience to the resident. It acknowledged that the contractors had failed to investigate the leak in 2018. However, it did not consider the impact of the shortcoming in any detail. From the evidence available, it is difficult confirm how long the leak continued or the extent of any damage caused, but the evidence confirms that the landlord was aware of a leak/flood in June 2018 and there is no evidence of it completing any repairs works before installing the kitchen in February 2019.
This was a significant failing and the landlord failed to complete repairs in accordance with the tenancy terms and its repairs service standards. The landlord should have considered this issue in further detail to determine this and fully acknowledge any inconvenience caused to the resident. The landlord should also have considered whether a compensation payment for distress and inconvenience was appropriate to put things right for the resident in accordance with its own complaints policy.
It is unclear whether the landlord was missing the required records to enable it to assess exactly what had gone wrong, but if that was the case, there may also have been a shortcoming in the landlord’s record keeping as it should keep accurate records of repairs reported and completed. Overall, the landlord’s complaint response in relation to the handling of repairs in 2018 did not go far enough to investigate, acknowledge and put right its shortcomings. The Ombudsman’s Remedies guidance states that the Ombudsman may set out a remedy that recognises the overall distress and inconvenience caused to a complainant by a particular service failure by a landlord.
In response to the resident’s request for information as to works completed and why she had to be decanted, the landlord responded appropriately by explaining why she had to move and providing a list of repairs completed at the property. There is also evidence of the landlord responding to the resident’s request for an explanation of why she had to move in its earlier correspondence on 5 November 2019, which was appropriate.
The resident also requested a timeline of incidents and dates that the various repairs were required and there is no evidence of the landlord providing this. In its complaint response of 1 April 2020, the landlord said that it did not have a timeline of reported incidents and due to current operational issues. The landlord did not provide further details but it is acknowledged that this may have been a reference to the COVID 19 pandemic and resulting impact of this and government restrictions. However, generally landlords should keep complete records of repairs reported and completed and should have access to any records held by their contractors on their behalf, and this information has not been provided to the Ombudsman either. The Ombudsman has therefore made a Recommendation to address this issue.
Although she did not specifically refer to it in her complaint escalation of 10 February 2020, in earlier and subsequent correspondence to the landlord, the resident also referred to extra costs she had incurred while in temporary accommodation, such as electricity and food. The landlord said it had provided her with a sofa, mattress, removal services and storage, but did not address these other issues. This was not a failing on the landlord’s part since it was not made clear by the resident that she wished to escalate these issues through the complaints process. However, given that they are outstanding and that the landlord’s decant policy refers to the possibility of reimbursing reasonable expenses, the Ombudsman has made a Recommendation about this issue.
It is also noted that there were some shortcomings in the landlord’s communication in relation to the decant and repairs issues, since between 24 September 2019 and 6 December 2019 the resident asked the landlord about the EH testing results and requested confirmation in writing as to when she could return to the property and there is no evidence of the landlord responding to these questions.

Assessment: How the landlord handled her claim for compensation for belongings damaged by the damp

The resident complained that she had to throw away numerous belongings when she moved back to the property because of the damp. There is evidence that on 2 December 2019, the resident requested details of how she could reclaim expenses for loss of furniture and belongings. On 11 December, the landlord asked if she wanted another insurance form sent out. The resident said she had not received one previously and requested one be sent.
On 30 December 2019, the resident provided photographs of a mouldy bed based and referred again to damaged belongings. When responding to the complaint on 1 April 2020, the landlord said it enclosed a loss claim form and advised the resident to provide a list of the damaged items and their value and details of the alleged time off work.
This response was appropriate to put right any previous failing by the landlord to provide the loss claim form (it is unclear from the evidence available whether this was provided previously or not). The resident has also informed the Ombudsman that the claim form was not attached to the complaint response of 1 April 2020. The Ombudsman is unable to confirm from the evidence available whether or not the landlord provided the form with the complaint response of 1 April 2020. The resident has also confirmed that for various reasons she did not respond to the landlord’s request for a list of damaged items.
Overall, there is evidence that the landlord took appropriate steps to address this aspect of the complaint given that it asked the resident to provide a list of damaged items and their value and it intended to provide her with the relevant claim form. Providing advice on how the resident could make an insurance claim for the lost belongings was the appropriate way to respond to this aspect of the complaint. It is outside of the remit of this service to consider any insurance claims or determine liability for damaged belongings themselves.
However, given that the resident states she did not receive the form and she did not know how to make the claim, and the landlord itself had acknowledged some shortcomings in how the repairs were handled, the Ombudsman has made a Recommendation that the landlord make contact with the resident to assist her in providing the required information and/or making an insurance loss claim at this stage. As the resident has referred to outstanding snagging works and a new leak, the Ombudsman has also referred to this in the Recommendations below.

Assessment: Complaints handling

The landlord’s Complaints policy states that complaints will be acknowledged within five working days and stage one investigations should be completed and a full response given to the customer within 20 working days from receipt of the complaint.
If it is deemed that the landlord’s response will stay the same, it may confirm a final decision at stage one. Acknowledgements should be sent for all stage two complaints within 5 working days. Stage two investigations should be completed and a full response given within 20 working days from receipt of complaint.
On 19 June 2019, the resident raised a complaint with the landlord. On 18 July 2019, the contractors responded to the resident’s complaint. It apologised for the time taken to investigate the complaint. This was one day outside the 20–working day timescale set out in the landlord’s complaint policy and the landlord appropriately apologised for the delay. The resident has stated that she did not receive this first complaint response. However, there is no evidence to confirm why that was the case therefore the Ombudsman cannot conclude as to why the resident did not receive it.
On 18 November 2019, the resident enquired about her complaint. The landlord provided a copy of the response dated 18 July 2019 and advised that if she had outstanding concerns, she could request these be escalated to stage two of the complaints process. This was an appropriate response to the resident’s enquiry.
On 2 December 2019 the resident asked for an updated complaint response but said that she would respond in further detail at a later date. The landlord responded that it had logged the complaint but it could not provide a further response until it had the further details she had referred to. This was reasonable since the landlord would have been unable to provide a full complaint response at stage two without the full reasons for the resident’s dissatisfaction with the earlier response.
The resident continued to communicate with the landlord and expressed some dissatisfaction, but there is no evidence of the resident providing the further explanation of why she wanted the landlord to consider the complaint further until her email of 10 February 2020. Following communication from the Ombudsman on 2 March 2020, the landlord provided a stage two complaint response on 1 April 2020. The landlord also apologised for the delay in responding.
It is acknowledged that the landlord could have done more between 18 November 2019 and 1 April 2020 to proactively manage the complaint by for example, contacting the resident to remind her to provide the further information and reinforcing that it could not provide a formal response until she did so. There was also a delay at stage two in that it provided the response 17 working days outside the timescale set out in its policy and following communication from this service.
However, the landlord appropriately acknowledged and apologised for this delay when responding to the complaint and upheld that part of her complaint. This was in accordance with the Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles. The Ombudsman has made an additional Recommendation to assist the landlord in preventing such a delay between complaint responses in future complaints.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure in respect of the complaint about how the landlord handled repairs reported.
In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration in respect of the complaint about how the landlord handled the claim for compensation for belongings damaged by the damp.
In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration in respect of how the landlord handled the formal complaint.

Reasons

The landlord responded appropriately to some aspects of the complaint by, for example, agreeing to investigate current repair issues and providing details of the repairs completed. However, the landlord did not fully investigate the shortcomings in relation to how it had handled the leak reported in 2018 and the impact of this shortcoming on the resident. It should have considered this fully and offered compensation to address the distress and inconvenience caused.
The landlord responded appropriately to the complaint about the damaged belongings as it agreed to provide a loss claim form so that the resident could make a claim to its insurers, and requested she provided details of the items. There is no evidence of the resident responding to this request. Since the resident has said she did not receive the loss claim form, the Ombudsman has made a Recommendation to assist the parties in resolving this outstanding issue.
While there was a significant delay between the landlord’s stage one and stage two complaint responses, the resident had said that she would provide a further explanation for her request to escalate the complaint and there is no evidence of her doing so until February 2020. There was a delay in the landlord responding to the stage two complaint, however, it appropriately acknowledged and apologised for this in the complaint response.

Orders

The landlord to apologise to the resident and pay her £300 compensation for the distress and inconvenience caused by its shortcomings in handling the repairs reported (within four weeks of the date of this Order).

Recommendations

The landlord to contact the resident to:
1. Discuss her claim for damaged belongings and provide any further advice and assistance she needs in order for her to make this claim.
2. Discuss her assertion of incurring extra costs while in temporary accommodation. The landlord to provide advice in relation to this in accordance with its decants policy and give her an opportunity to provide any relevant details or evidence.
3. Discuss the resident’s concerns about outstanding snagging works and the new leak.
The landlord to take steps to ensure that it is keeping full records of repairs reported and completed, including those reported and responded to by its contractors.
The landlord to consider what steps it can take to prevent a delay in providing a stage two response and report back to the Ombudsman with any lessons learned or steps taken to prevent this happening again.
The Ombudsman accepts that, because of the present restrictions due to the corona virus pandemic, the timing of the above actions will depend on what is reasonable in the light of Government guidance regarding the health of the resident and of the landlord’s staff.