Tower Hamlets Homes (202109442)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202109442

Tower Hamlets Homes

25 May 2022

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 how the landlord handled:
1. Repairs to the valve in the living room radiator.
2. Repositioning the isolation valve for the resident’s heating system.
3. The resident’s concerns relating to cracks in the property’s ceilings.
4. The resident’s concerns relating to the condition of the electrics in the property.

Background

The resident is a secure tenant of the landlord, which is a local authority. The property is a flat in a communal building.
The resident has experienced ongoing issues with numerous outstanding repairs to the property and how his reports had been handled by the landlord and its contractors. As a result, the resident has raised several complaints with the landlord.
On 19 March 2021, the resident contacted the landlord and raised a new complaint. He described the elements of the complaint as the length of time it was taking the landlord to:
1. Repair the valve on the living room radiator.
2. Move the isolation valve for the resident’s heating system from his neighbour’s property into his property.
3. Order replacement parts to complete repairs to the living room window.
The landlord sent a stage one complaint response on 6 April 2021. It informed the resident that:
1. A work order was raised on 17 December 2020 to repair the living room radiator valve. This was raised incorrectly and cancelled. The landlord apologised to the resident that he was not made aware of the problem at the time and the matter had been escalated internally to its management team.
2. A work order was raised on 17 February 2021 to reposition the isolation valve and an appointment arranged for 23 February 2021 with the managing agent of his neighbour’s property. However, this did not go ahead as the neighbour was not available. The landlord would keep the resident updated on the status of the appointment with the neighbour and noted that for the work to be completed its contractor would require access to both properties.
3. The replacement parts for the living widow had to be specially manufactured, which normally takes about six to eight weeks to complete. It confirmed that an appointment had been booked for 7 April 2021 to complete repairs to the window.
4. It recognised that the resident had experienced difficulties in communicating with it and apologised. It explained that as a result of the Covid-19 pandemic its contractor had been working at a reduced capacity, which had resulted in delays in gathering information.
The resident escalated the complaint 11 April 2021. He also highlighted several other additional issues that he wanted the landlord to consider at stage two. Following further correspondence and a telephone meeting, the landlord wrote to the resident on 1 June 2021 and confirmed that they had agreed that the stage two complaint response would consider:
1. The repair to the valve in the living room radiator.
2. Ongoing delays in repositioning the isolation valve from the neighbour’s property.
3. Cracks in the resident’s property’s ceiling and whether these were signs of a structural issue with the building.
4. The resident experiencing electrical shocks in the property and his dissatisfaction with the electrical inspection.
The stage two response was sent to the resident on 7 June 2021. The landlord informed him that:
1. A new valve was fitted to the living room radiator on 24 May 2021. However, the valve was unable to control the temperature of the radiator. A follow-on appointment on 27 May 2021 was unable to resolve the issue and a further appointment will be required. The landlord apologised to the resident for the delay.
2. The work to relocate the isolation valve had been delayed as the resident’s neighbour was unable to provide it with the details of their landlord’s managing agent. The matter had been escalated to its leasehold services team to obtain the contact details in order to be granted permission to complete the work.
3. An inspection undertaken on 13 May 2021 found that the cracks in the ceilings in the property were as a result of normal movement of plaster and there was no evidence of any structural damage or subsidence.
4. In response to the resident’s concerns relating to electric shocks he had experienced, an electrical inspection was carried out on 7 May 2021. The landlord provided a copy of the electrical safety certificate that was awarded following the inspection.
The resident contacted this Service on 21 July 2021. He described the outstanding issues of the complaint as the length of time it was taking the landlord to resolve the repairs and the poor communication he had received when making reports.
As a resolution to the complaint, the resident requested to receive £1,500 compensation, for the landlord to undertake the replastering of the ceilings in the property, and for a full electrical test to be carried out.

Assessment and findings

Relevant policies and procedures

The landlord categorises its repairs as “Emergency” (respond to make safe within two hours, complete repairs within 24 hours) and “Routine” (complete within 20 working days).
Examples given by the landlord of what it considers an emergency repair include:
1. A water leak that cannot be contained.
2. Total loss of electricity.
3. Making safe major structural damage.
4. Complete loss of heating in winter, where no alternative heating is available.
The landlord operates a two-stage complaints process. When a complaint is received, the landlord aims to acknowledge the complaint within five working days and provide a response at stage one within ten to 20 working days. If the complainant is dissatisfied with the response, they can request an escalation of the complaint to the next stage. The landlord will then undertake a review of the complaint and provide a stage two response within 20 working days. This will be the landlord’s final response to the complaint.
The complaints policy also notes that in more complex complaints, the landlord may extend its timeframes by a further ten working days
The landlord’s compensation policy states that it will consider offering financial redress to a complainant when there has been quantifiable loss, distress caused to the complainant, professional fees or other expenditure incurred by the complainant in pursuing the matter, and the time and trouble caused to a complainant in progressing the complaint both with the landlord and with the appropriate ombudsman service.
In regard to what level of compensation should be awarded, the compensation policy states that the landlord follows the advice given in the remedies guidance published by this Service (which is available on our website) and the remedies guidance published by the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman (LGSCO).

Scope of investigation

Paragraph 39(o) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme (the Scheme) states that we will not consider matters which “the Housing Ombudsman, or any other Ombudsman has already decided upon”.
The resident has brought several other cases to this Service after raising complaints with the landlord. This has resulted in three published reports where this Service has sent its determination to the resident and two other cases that have been put forwarded for formal investigation and the reports will then be sent to the resident. These cases are:
1. Case 202010991 relating to how the landlord handled a leak into the resident’s property.
2. Case 202109524 relating to how the landlord handled the resident’s reports of a leaking radiator in the kitchen.
3. Case 202112548 relating to repairs to the bedroom window.
4. Case 202113477 relating to debris in the water supply and a dripping tap.
5. Case 202113702 relating to how the landlord handled repairs to the property’s toilet.
Several elements in these cases have been discussed during this complaint, were addressed by the landlord in its stage two complaint response and were raised by the resident in his contact with this service. Therefore, and in line with paragraph 39(o) of the Scheme, this assessment will not consider the following elements:
1. Issues relating to the radiator in the kitchen.
2. Repairs to the bedroom window.
3. Debris in the property’s water supply.

How the landlord handled repairs to the valve in the living room radiator

In the stage one response, the landlord explained that a work order was raised on 17 December 2020 in replace the valve but was cancelled due to a system issue. Its repair logs state that a new appointment was arranged for 26 March 2021 and further appointments were arranged for 24 and 27 May 2021.
In the stage two response, the landlord stated that while the valve had been replaced, there remained an outstanding issue relating to temperature control. The repairs logs gone on to state that further work was raised in August 2021 to inspect several radiator valves within the property in order to resolve this issue.
While the landlord apologised for not informing the resident of the system issue that caused the original appointment to be cancelled, it did not offer any redress for the inconvenience. Furthermore it did not address the three-month delay in arranging a new appointment. Therefore, there has been service failure by the landlord for not arranging a new appointment within 20 working days and not addressing this delay within its complaint process. In order to fully resolve this aspect of the complaint the landlord will need to complete the repair and make an offer of redress to acknowledge the inconvenience of the delay.
As previously stated, the landlord’s complaint policy follows this Service’s own remedies guidance when calculating compensation awards. The guidance suggests a payment of £250 to £700 in cases of considerable service failure or maladministration, but there may be no permanent impact on the complainant. As examples for when this level of payment should be considered, the guidance suggests:
1. A complainant repeatedly having to chase responses and seek correction of mistakes, necessitating unreasonable level of involvement by that complainant
2. Failure over a considerable period of time to act in accordance with policy – for example to address repairs; to respond to antisocial behaviour; to make adequate adjustments

How the landlord handled repositioning the isolation valve for the resident’s heating system

In the stage two response, the landlord explained that as a result of the layout of the building, the isolation valve for the resident’s heating system is located in his neighbour’s property. This had resulted in his neighbour turning off the resident’s radiators on at least one occasion.
The landlord went on to explain the difficulties it had experiencing in first contacting the neighbour and then contacting the managing agent in order to receive permission from the leaseholder in order to undertake work in the neighbour’s property to move the isolation valve.
As well as repair notes, the landlord has provided its internal correspondence and its correspondence with its contractor relating to its attempts to contact the neighbour and leaseholder in order to progress the repair, as well as the contractor’s comments on whether further properties would be required to be inspected before the relocation of the valve could go ahead.
While the frustration of the resident in the length of time it is taking to resolve the issue is wholly understandable, this Service would not consider delays outside the control of the landlord necessarily as service failure. In this case, the landlord has explained to the resident why the work had yet to go head and passed on the comments from its contractors. It has also raised work orders and arranged appointments to carry out inspections of the heating system in the areas it had access to.
The neighbour would now be aware of the isolation valve, and not to use it. Continued, deliberate use of the valve would be considered anti-social behaviour and something for the landlord to manage through the relevant process. As this was not reported as ongoing, the outstanding repair did not in itself cause adverse effect to the resident as the heating continued to be available. Therefore it was reasonable for the landlord to try and find a managed solution to securing access (as opposed to, for example, pursuing formal legal action).

How the landlord responded to the resident’s concerns relating to cracks in the property’s ceilings

The landlord’s repair logs state that the resident reported several cracks on the ceilings of the living room, bedroom and bathroom on 12 March 2021. The landlord arranged an appointment for 22 March 2021. The operative who attended informed the landlord that the ceilings were solid, and the matter was a decorative issue.
In an email sent to the landlord on 26 April 2021, the resident expressed his dissatisfaction that it was a plasterer who attended the 22 March 2021 appointment and requested that a structural engineer inspect the ceilings.
The landlord wrote to the resident on 11 May 2021 to inform him that a homes repairs inspector would visit the property on 13 May 2021 to inspect the ceiling. It also advised if any signs of structural movement were observed that it would commission a structural survey of the building. It also advised the resident that if no evidence of structure movement was found, it would be his responsibility to carry out filling and decoration of the ceilings.
The inspector found no evidence of structural movement or damage during their visit, that the cracks were the result of normal movement of the plaster and the landlord confirmed that the filling of the cracks and any decoration would be the responsibility of the resident.
The landlord responded to this repair issue and the following concerns reasonably. The landlord arranged the initial appointment within its 20-working day timeframe for non-emergency repairs. When the resident informed the landlord of his concerns that the cracks may be any indication of structural issues in the building, a further inspection was arranged. The landlord then informed the resident of its findings and that it would be his responsibility to carry out any filling or decoration. The resident has not provided any alternative, appropriate evidence to dispute the surveyor’s conclusion.
The landlord’s position is in line with section F of the tenancy agreement, which relates to repairs and improvements. Rule 15 in this section describes repairs which are not the landlord’s responsibility. This incudes decoration, unless it is necessary after the landlord has carried out repairs to the property.

How the landlord responded to the resident’s concerns relating to the condition of the electrics in the property

In his email to the landlord on 26 April 2021, the resident informed it that he had received electrical shocks when touching various plug sockets and switches in the property. The landlord arranged an inspection for 7 May 2021.
The certificate awarded following the inspection stated that the inspection covered the “inspection and testing of the fixed wiring system within the named property” and that the installations in the property were found to be “satisfactory”.
The landlord has acted appropriately in this matter. When the issue of electric shocks was highlighted by the resident, it arranged for a suitably qualified electrician to undertake an inspection of the electrics. A Domestic Electrical Installation Condition Report (EICR) was undertaken, and a certificate was issued. The certificate described the electrical installations in the property, what was tested as part of the inspection and stated that no issues were found. A copy of the certificate was provided to the resident as part of the stage two response.
It is reasonable for a landlord to rely on the recommendations of appropriately qualified operatives and while the resident has questioned the conclusions reached by the electrician who undertook the inspection, no evidence has been provided which disputes the information in the EICR certificate.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure by the landlord in respect of how it handled repairs to the valve in the living room radiator.
In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration by the landlord in respect of how it handled:
1. Repositioning the isolation valve for the resident’s heating system.
2. The resident’s concerns relating to cracks in the property’s ceilings
3. The resident’s concerns relating to the condition of the electrics in the property.

Orders

The landlord has been ordered to pay the resident £300, within 4 weeks, consisting of:
1. £100 to acknowledge the inconvenience of the incorrectly cancelled radiator valve repair.
2. £100 to acknowledge the inconvenience of the time taken to arrange the replacement repair following the resident’s formal complaint.
3. £100 to acknowledge the inconvenience of the outstanding repair, given the replacement repairs did not succeed and the issue was outstanding with no specific due date at the time of the final response.