Tower Hamlets Homes (202113702)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202113702

Tower Hamlets Homes

13 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

1. The complaint is about the landlord’s:
   1. Handling of a repair to the resident’s toilet.
   2. Complaint handling; specifically how long it took to respond at stage two of the complaints procedure.

Background

2. The resident is a tenant of the landlord.
3. The resident raised a complaint with the landlord in August 2021 as he had previously reported that his toilet made a loud hammering noise when flushed. He explained that there had been two previous visits (in May and July 2021) where the washer to the toilet was replaced, however, the noise came back after one to two weeks on each occasion. He had asked for the contractor to reattend but had not heard anything since and was dissatisfied with the length of time it was taking to resolve the issue. He later added that an appointment had been arranged for 16 August 2021 but this had been raised for a separate issue related to his taps and the noise issue was not on the contractors list of work.  He sought compensation for the poor service he had received and the inconvenience caused.
4. In response to the resident’s complaint, the landlord explained that an operative had attended on 18 May 2021 and resolved the issue at that time by overhauling the pan, cistern and inlet valve of the toilet. An operative also attended on 7 July 2021 to carry out a plumbing check to the property. The toilet was checked and a new washer was installed. The landlord arranged a further appointment on 16 August 2021 and acknowledged that the resident had advised that the toilet issue was not on the operative’s list of works. It explained that the work order was to remedy a separate issue related to dripping taps in the property and to also check the noise from the toilet. It noted that the work order did not explicitly state that the noise issue was from the toilet and the contractor had assumed that this related to the taps. No work was completed on this date as the operative had found that the taps had recently been renewed. The landlord arranged for a telephone inspection to take place on 21 September 2021 and confirmed that any works needed would be raised following the inspection. It said that it would monitor the works to ensure that the issue was resolved.
5. A telephone inspection was carried out on 21 September 2021. During October 2021, an appointment was raised for a separate issue related to the resident’s concerns about debris in his water supply. The resident asked the landlord to confirm whether this was for the toilet hammer noise which was still unresolved, and the landlord confirmed that the appointment was to complete a water analysis. The landlord’s records show that a repair to replace the inlet valve to the toilet was completed on 29 November 2021 and the landlord received no further reports of noise issues from the toilet.
6. The resident referred his complaint to this Service as he remained dissatisfied with the overall time taken to resolve the noise issue from his toilet and the landlord’s handling of the matter. He was also dissatisfied that the landlord had taken longer than 20 working days to deal with his complaint. To resolve the complaint, he wanted £200 compensation for the inconvenience caused.

Assessment and findings

Repair to the toilet

7. The landlord’s repairs policy confirms that the landlord is responsible for repairs required to the plumbing inside the resident’s property, including toilets, sinks and taps.  The policy states that routine repairs, including those related to minor leaks and pipes should be completed within 20 working days. If, at any stage, there is likely to be a delay, the landlord would be expected to contact the resident, provide an explanation for the delay and a new expected timescale.
8. In this case, the resident was initially dissatisfied that there had been a number of visits to resolve the noise issue from his toilet but the noise returned after a couple of weeks on each occasion. The landlord was entitled to rely on the opinion of its qualified staff and contractors who determined that the issue had been resolved at the time and no additional works were required. It is noted that the issue appeared to be resolved for a number of weeks before returning, and neither the resident nor the landlord could have foreseen that the issue would return at the time. In some cases, multiple repair attempts are needed before an issue is resolved, but this would not necessarily amount to a service failure by the landlord.
9. Following the resident’s complaint on 6 August 2021, there was a significant delay in resolving the noise issue until 29 November 2021, which was 56 working days outside of the landlord’s 20 working day timescale for this type of repair. The landlord acted appropriately by arranging for an appointment to take place on 16 August 2021, within a reasonable timescale. However, the landlord has admitted that the work order for the appointment on 16 August 2021 focused on the repair needed to the resident’s taps. The work order did not specifically state that the noise issue was related to the toilet which led to the operative assuming that the noise issue was related to the taps. As such, while the contractor confirmed that no repairs were needed to the resident’s taps, the noise issue was not resolved at this time.
10. The landlord has not successfully utilised the complaints process to acknowledge and apologise for the inconvenience this may have caused to the resident who was still awaiting a repair. It would have been appropriate for the landlord to have been more specific when raising the work order to ensure that the contractor had sufficient information about the repair issue. It would also have been appropriate for the landlord to have acknowledged this ‘failed’ appointment in its complaint responses and offered an apology to the resident in view of the inconvenience caused.
11. Given the resident’s ongoing concerns, the landlord took reasonable steps to address the matter by arranging an inspection of the property on 21 September 2021. There is limited information regarding what happened following the inspection and despite evidence stating that a repair was raised at the time, there is no evidence to confirm whether any repairs were carried out which related to the noise issue. Following the inspection, the resident continued to report other issues regarding his drinking water supply and noted that the noise issue remained outstanding in November 2021. The landlord’s records show that an appointment to fit a new inlet valve to the toilet was carried out on 29 November 2021 and there have been no further reports of noise issues with the toilet in the resident’s property.
12. It is acknowledged that there were several repair issues around the same time, however, the landlord would be expected to have clear records relating to these repairs and to ensure that the noise related issue was not overlooked. The landlord did not appropriately monitor the repair through to a resolution in line with its agreement to do so in its stage two complaint response. Furthermore, the landlord failed to keep the resident updated on the repair and the resident needed to follow-up with the landlord to confirm whether the work was due to take place, which is likely to have caused inconvenience.
13. In view of the delay in completing the work following the resident’s reports that the issue had returned in August 2021, the failure to address the issue on 16 August 2021 as the resident expected, and the lack of communication following the complaint, the landlord should offer financial compensation to the resident to put things right. The Ombudsman’s remedies guidance states that compensation amounts in the range of £50 to £250 are considered proportionate where there has been service failure by the landlord which had an impact on the complainant but was of short duration and may not have significantly affected the overall outcome for the complainant. This includes failure to meet service standards for actions and responses but where the failure had no significant impact. In this case, the resident was still able to use his toilet facilities so was not significantly impacted by the noise issue. The landlord is therefore ordered to pay the resident £100 compensation in recognition of its service failures.

Complaint handling

14. The landlord’s published target time at stage two is 20 working days. The landlord says that it received the resident’s stage two complaint on 16 August 2021. It subsequently provided a full response to the complaint on 22 September 2021, therefore exceeding its target timescale by seven working days. No evidence has been provided to show that the landlord advised the resident that there would be a delay, and therefore it failed to manage resident’s expectations adequately in this regard. It also failed to take the opportunity to acknowledge and apologise for the delay in its stage two response. Accordingly, there was a service failure by the landlord in its handling of the complaint and it has been ordered to pay the resident £50 compensation in recognition of this.

Determination

15. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in respect of its handling of a repair to the resident’s toilet.
16. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure by the landlord in respect of its handling of the formal complaint.

Orders

17. The Ombudsman orders the landlord to pay the resident £150 compensation within the next four weeks, broken down as follows:
    1. £100 for the distress and inconvenience caused by its handling of the resident’s reports about the toilet.
    2. £50 for the delay in responding at stage two of the complaints procedure.
18. The Ombudsman orders the landlord to review its complaint handling procedures and to take steps to ensure that formal complaints are responded to within published timescales. The findings of the review should be provided to both the resident and the Ombudsman within the next eight weeks.

Recommendations

19. It is recommended that the landlord considers carrying out staff training to ensure that specific details of any repair issues reported by a resident are raised on work orders. This is to ensure that contractors have a clear understanding of the reported issue and to prevent repair issues being overlooked in the future.
20. It is recommended that the landlord reviews its record keeping practices to ensure that it has clear records of each repair issue reported by a resident so that there is a clear audit trail and it is able to provide this information to the Ombudsman on request.