Thurrock Council (202323745)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202323745

Thurrock Council

27 March 2025


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. This complaint is about the landlord’s handling of:
    1. Repairs to the resident’s hot water system.
    2. The associated complaint.

Background

  1. The resident holds a secure tenancy. The property is a semi-detached 3-bedroom house.
  2. The resident is blind. She also suffers from a hearing impairment and has limited mobility. An advocate has represented the resident throughout the complaint process. However, for the sake of this investigation, any actions taken by the resident’s advocate will be written as undertaken by ‘the resident’.
  3. The resident contacted the landlord on 4 May 2022 to report she had a limited amount of hot water. The landlord attended on 10 May 2022, clearing an airlock and renewing the ball valve. The following day it raised follow-on works to renew the hot water supply as this had corroded. The landlord completed this work on 28 July 2022. It renewed the hot water supply with pipework going through the resident’s bedroom wardrobe.
  4. The resident complained to the landlord about this repair on 23 November 2022. She was unhappy that the landlord had run the pipe through an expensive set of wardrobes and damaged them. She felt the landlord did not properly discuss this with her and took the shortest route for the pipework.
  5. The landlord provided its stage 1 complaint response on 7 December 2022. It did not uphold her complaint. It said that a supervisor attended the property on 1 August 2022 to inspect the works and confirmed it had carried this out by the only means possible. It also said that its contractors had verbally asked the resident if they could run the pipe through the wardrobe to which she had agreed. It also provided the resident with information on how to make a claim to its insurers for any damages she felt the landlord was liable for.
  6. The resident wrote to the landlord’s insurer on 19 January 2023. The insurer informed the resident that she would need to speak to the contractor’s insurer as it would be liable for any damage caused by its negligence. The resident has told the Ombudsman that she contacted the contractor’s insurer but has had no response from them.
  7. The resident requested to escalate her complaint to stage 2 of the complaints process although this escalation request has not been provided to the Ombudsman. The landlord responded to her on 21 February 2023 saying that it would not escalate the complaint to stage 2 as the request was made more than 28 days after the stage 1 complaint. It did say however that the resident could bring her complaint to the Ombudsman.
  8. The resident made a new complaint to the landlord on 17 March 2023 about separate decoration works that it undertook in March 2023. The landlord provided its stage 1 complaint response to this complaint on 30 March 2023. It did not uphold the resident’s complaint. That complaint was not escalated to stage 2.
  9. The resident wrote to the Ombudsman on 14 November 2023 asking us to consider her complaint. She said the landlord did not appropriately carry out the repairs and these are a hazard due to her disabilities. She felt the landlord failed to make reasonable adjustments due to her disability and she denied agreeing to the works. She said she wanted a full apology from the landlord and appropriate compensation for the damage to her wardrobes.

Assessment and findings

The scope of this investigation

  1. The landlord chose not to escalate the resident’s complaint about the hot water repairs. Whilst the escalation request may have fallen outside of the landlord’s timescales, the resident has raised the complaint with the Ombudsman in a reasonable timeframe in line with the timescales set out in the Housing Ombudsman Scheme. The Ombudsman will therefore complete its investigation as if the complaint completed all stages of the landlord’s complaints procedure.
  2. There is no evidence that the resident requested to escalate her second complaint made in March 2023 (about decorations and contractor conduct) to stage 2 of the complaints process. The Housing Ombudsman Scheme states that we may not consider complaints which have not completed the landlord’s complaints process. The Ombudsman will therefore not investigate those matters.

The landlord’s handling of repairs to the resident’s hot water system

  1. There is a disagreement as to whether the landlord and resident discussed the position of the new water supply at the appointment on 28 July 2022. The landlord has stated that the resident verbally agreed. She denied it asked her about these works. The Ombudsman is unable to make a finding relating to what was, or was not, agreed on this date due to a lack of documentary evidence. The landlord should consider the information that it documents at these appointments to prevent situations such as these arising in future.
  2. The landlord said in its stage 1 complaint response that the route the piping took when installing the new hot water supply was the only one possible. However, the landlord’s contractor later told the landlord in March 2023 that this was not the case. It said in its submission to the Ombudsman that a supervisor from its contractor said there was an alternative way of running the pipework as the wardrobe was not built in. The contractor also said that whilst this was the case, they understood why the original operative had believed this was the only route.
  3. This evidence therefore demonstrates that the landlord’s handling of the repair caused unnecessary damage to the resident’s wardrobes. The landlord has apparently not contacted the resident to put things right since finding out that the pipework could have been run differently. It is unreasonable that the landlord did not review its decision on the wardrobe damage once it became aware of the potential fault.
  4. When she discussed escalating her complaint to stage 2 of the complaints process, the resident mentioned that she felt the work was a health and safety concern due to exposed pipes which become very hot. Given her visual impairment, she felt this was something which had the potential for injury. The landlord did not engage with this allegation and has not demonstrated that it considered the resident’s vulnerabilities when completing the works. Despite the landlord’s decision not to escalate the complaint to stage 2, it should have engaged with the resident’s concerns, especially given her vulnerabilities.
  5. A supervisor from the landlord’s contractor apparently post-inspected the works on 1 August 2022. However, there is no formal record of this, or any evidence provided from this inspection. The Ombudsman would expect to see some form of evidence from the landlord to demonstrate exactly what was inspected and what the outcomes of this were. 
  6. The landlord’s handling of repairs to the hot water system represented maladministration. Its contractors completed works in a way that unnecessarily caused damage to the resident’s wardrobes. The landlord did not review this matter once it became aware that the pipework could have been laid differently. It failed to take any action in relation to the resident’s concerns about the health and safety of this repair, despite her vulnerabilities. For the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident, the landlord should pay her £200 compensation. This is in line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance which recommends figures in this range where there has been a failure which adversely affected the resident.
  7. The resident reported problems in making an insurance claim for the wardrobe damage through both the landlord’s insurance, and the contractor’s. We have seen evidence that the landlord’s insurer directed the resident to the contractor. Given the evidence demonstrates the landlord and its contractors could have run the piping without damaging the resident’s wardrobe, the landlord should consider if it will cover the cost of replacing these under its compensation policy. If not, it should ask its insurer to progress the resident’s claim. 

The landlord’s handling of the associated complaint

  1. The landlord’s complaints policy has 2 stages. At stage 1, it says it will acknowledge complaints within 5 working days and provide its complaint response within a further 10 working days. If a resident wishes to escalate a complaint to stage 2 of the complaints process, they must ask for this no later than 28 calendar days from the stage 1 complaint response. At stage 2, the landlord says it will acknowledge the escalation request within 5 working days and provide its complaint response within 20 working days.
  2. At stage 1, the landlord handled the resident’s complaint fairly. It provided its complaint response within 10 days of the resident raising her complaint, which is in line with the timescales set out in its policy.
  3. The landlord rejected the resident’s request to escalate her complaint to stage 2 of the complaint process on 21 February 2023. It did so in line with its complaints policy. Whilst doing so, the landlord gave the resident the details for the Ombudsman and said she could raise her complaint with us. It was good practice for the landlord to signpost the resident to this Service.
  4. The resident agreed that she had brought the complaint outside of the 28-day window on 22 February 2023. However, she asked that, in light of her disabilities, the landlord consider making a reasonable adjustment. The resident mentioned both her disabilities and ill health as reasons why she was unable to request an escalation to stage 2 within the 28-day window.
  5. The landlord has provided no evidence that it considered her vulnerabilities or provided her with its reason for not making an adjustment given the circumstances. Its failures to consider this, or to communicate with the resident about her request for a reasonable adjustment, represented service failure.
  6. The landlord did not properly consider the resident’s vulnerabilities when it refused to escalate her complaint to stage 2. This meant it missed an opportunity to review her complaint although there was no delay in her being able to access our Service as a result. For this failing, the landlord should pay the resident £50 compensation. This is in line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance which recommends figures in this range where there is a minor service failure by the landlord.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of repairs to the hot water system.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure in the landlord’s handling of the associated complaint.

Orders and Recommendations

Orders

  1. It is ordered that within 4 weeks of the date of this letter, the landlord should:
    1. Pay the resident £250 compensation, consisting of:
      1. £200 for the distress and inconvenience caused by its failures in handling the repair to her hot water system;
      2. £50 for the time and trouble caused by its failures in handling her complaint.
    2. Apologise to the resident in writing for the failures identified in this report.
    3. Write to the resident to advise if it will cover the cost of damage to her wardrobe under its compensation policy, or if it will refer the matter to its insurer and ask them to proceed with a claim.
    4. Arrange an inspection of the hot water system pipework, focusing on the health and safety of its installation following the 2022 repair. Within 2 weeks of this inspection, it should provide the resident and the Ombudsman with a written report detailing its findings and any necessary remedial works.
    5. Provide evidence to the Ombudsman that it has done so.

Recommendations

  1. The landlord should consider its application of the timescales in its complaints policy. It should ensure that it is compliant with the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code and is able to consider any circumstances that may make it difficult for residents to escalate their complaints within its timescales. It should especially consider this in relation to vulnerable residents.
  2. The landlord should review its record keeping practices. It should consider whether it can keep more information of what works its residents consent to during appointments, as well as reports of any inspections that it undertakes.