Waltham Forest Council (201912480)

Back to Top

 

 

 

 

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 201912480

Waltham Forest Council

26 January 2021

(Revised Post Review)

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

  1. The complaint refers to:

 

  1. The Landlord’s handling of repair works to kitchen units, bathroom and mould in the property whilst the Resident was a tenant.

 

  1. The Landlord’s handling of repair works to the Resident’s boiler whilst the Resident was a tenant

 

  1. Repair issues once the Resident became a leaseholder.

 

  1. The Landlord’s complaint handling of these matters.

 

Jurisdiction

 

  1. What we can and cannot consider is called the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. This is governed by the Housing Ombudsman Scheme. When a complaint is brought to the Ombudsman, we must consider all the circumstances of the case as there are sometimes reasons why a complaint will not be investigated.

 

  1. After carefully considering all the evidence, in accordance with the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the following aspects of the complaint are outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.

 

Health Issues

 

  1. Paragraph 39(i) of the Scheme states:

The Ombudsman will not consider complaints which concern matters where the Ombudsman considers it quicker, fairer, more reasonable or more effective to seek a remedy through the courts, a designated person, other tribunal or procedure;

 

  1. The Resident’s reports that the Landlord’s handling of the repair issues in his property has affected his underlying health conditions are outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. The Ombudsman does not doubt the Resident’s comments regarding his health, but this Service is unable to draw conclusions on the causation of, or liability for, impacts on health and wellbeing. This would be better dealt with as a personal injury claim through the courts. The Resident may wish to consider taking independent legal advice if he wishes to pursue this option. However, consideration has been given to the general distress and inconvenience which the situation has caused the Resident.

 

The purchase of the property

 

  1. Similarly, in accordance with paragraph 39(i) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, any concerns the Resident may have regarding the purchase of his property would be outside the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. This is because the sale was a legal matter, involving the Resident’s and the Landlord’s solicitors, and would be better suited to court. The Resident may wish to contact the Leaseholder Advisory Service (LEASE), as LEASE offers free advice to leaseholders, and may be able to provide some advice regarding the sales process and the next steps if the Resident wishes to pursue his claims.  If the Resident has any concerns about his own solicitor and the service he has been given, he can approach the Legal Ombudsman.

 

The Resident’s further complaints

 

  1. Paragraph 39 (a) of the Scheme states:

The Ombudsman will not consider complaints which are made prior to having exhausted a member’s complaints procedure

 

  1. The Resident’s complaint to the Landlord regarding the actions of his neighbours, and any further correspondence is outside the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. This is because the Ombudsman can only consider matters which have been raised with the Landlord as a formal complaint and which the Landlord has issued a final response to, under its complaints procedure. This is so the Landlord has the opportunity to address the complaint itself, before the Ombudsman becomes involved. Therefore, this investigation is unable to consider the Resident’s complaint regarding his neighbours’ antisocial behaviour as part of this investigation. If the Resident completes the Landlord’s complaint process on these matters and remains dissatisfied once he has received its final response, he could refer the matters as a new complaint to the Ombudsman. In view of this, the current investigation focuses on the period up until the Landlord’s final response to the Resident’s complaint regarding repair issues in his property.

 

Background

 

  1. The Resident has lived in the property since 21 March 2016. He had originally been a tenant of the Landlord, who is the local authority. The Resident applied to buy his home in April 2019 under the Right to Buy Scheme. This was granted and his lease began on 20 January 2020.

 

  1. The property is a one-bedroom, ground-floor flat.

 

Summary of events

 

  1. The Resident raised a complaint to the Landlord on 23 September 2019. He stated that he had contacted the Landlord previously regarding the condition of his property, but the issues remained unresolved. He said that there was mould and damp on his kitchen walls, the mould had now spread to his kitchen cupboards. A plumber had broken a base of one of his cabinets to reach the water supply and change the handle which remained under the cupboard base. He questioned how he was supposed to get to this should he need to turn the water supply off in case of an emergency. He stated that this work had left large gaps which had led to a mouse infestation. He explained that the current conditions were affecting his disability and his young children. He also stated that his central heating had not been working correctly since July 2019, and many engineers had attended but had not resolved the problem. His toilet tank was leaking, and the bathroom floor was ‘destroyed’ when the bathroom sink was replaced.

 

  1.  The Resident raised a further complaint to the Landlord on 3 October 2019. He stated that his central heating and boiler had not been working correctly since 24 July 2019. He said that he had reported this issue many times and the contractor had advised him that two pipes needed to be changed. He stated that his neurological condition had been badly affected by the cold. He received an automatic response to this complaint the same day, which said that it aimed to respond within ten days. The Resident made a further request to have a refund of all rent he had paid from July 2019 until the landlord fixed his central heating, as he was unable to use this.  Again, he received an automated email from the Landlord, which stated he would receive a response within ten days. The Resident raised these issues again on 17 October 2019 as he had not received a response from the Landlord and received the same automatic response.

 

  1. The Landlord issued its stage one response to the Resident’s initial concerns regarding his kitchen units and condensation on 18 October 2019, and stated the following:

 

  1.  It summarised the Resident’s reasons for complaint, detailing the issues regarding mould, damp, his bathroom floor and toilet, kitchen cupboards and problems with his neighbour who was throwing rubbish in front of the property and using drugs.

 

  1.  It apologised that he had issues with the property since moving in and summarised the inspection carried out by its surveyor and the problems which had been identified.

 

  1.  The surveyor had identified the condensation on his bathroom cistern was due to warm air in the bathroom. It noted the Resident’s request to install an air brick but explained that it would be unable to install this as the stairs were for the flat above; it could look at fitting vents to the top and bottom of the cupboard door to allow air movement within the cupboard.

 

  1.  Regarding his kitchen cupboard units, it had identified that the backing boards needed to be replaced, following this there would no longer be an entry point for mice, and the infestation should cease. It advised that if he had further issues, he could contact the local authority’s Pest Control service.

 

  1.  Regarding the bathroom, it had identified no issues with the bathroom sink. It noted that the Resident had concerns that the ducting was old; however, the surveyor had found no problem with this.

 

  1.  In relation to his neighbour’s ASB, it had informed the Resident’s housing officer about the fly-tipping by his neighbour ,and they would be bringing the matter to the neighbour’s attention. With his other concerns involving the neighbours who lived across the street, it suggested the Resident contact the police as it did not manage that property and was therefore not responsible for the actions of the tenants residing there. It stated any further ASB issues should be referred to the Resident’s housing officer and provided their details.

 

  1.  It had raised several repair orders, and its contractor would be contacting the Resident to arrange an appointment for these works.

 

  1.  It apologised that it did not investigate the damp smell when the Resident first moved into the property; however, it expected its residents to manage moisture levels in their properties. It acknowledged that the Resident had stated he had done so, but this formed part of the terms and conditions of being a tenant in this property owned by the Landlord. It said it would not uphold his complaint and he could escalate his complaint should he remain dissatisfied.

 

  1. On 28 October 2019, the Resident raised a further complaint to the Landlord. He maintained his previous position that he was unhappy with the repair issues in his property and stated that the issues had been apparent when he first began his tenancy. He requested that the Landlord take action to carry out the repair issues or reimburse him for the cost of arranging the repairs himself.

 

  1. The Resident raised his complaint concerning his central heating and boiler again on 7 November 2019. The Landlord sent an acknowledgement email to the Resident on 11 November 2019 and stated that he would receive a response to his complaint within 20 days under stage one of its Complaints Procedure.

 

  1. On 27 November 2019 the Resident emailed the Landlord concerning his kitchen cupboard and walls, and he provided photos of his main issues. He added that his kitchen was old and outdated, but his Tenancy Agreement had stated that this had been new when he moved in. He requested the Landlord take urgent action in respect of these matters. This complaint was acknowledged the same day.

 

  1.  On 4 December 2019 the Resident added a note to his complaint on the Landlord’s online portal, stating that the Landlord’s contractor had cancelled the kitchen cabinet replacement as his completion date to purchase the property was due on 16 December 2019. The contractors had stated that they did not have any available appointments until January 2020; they had advised him to ask for money back since they had been unable to repair the issues. The Resident added a further note to his complaint on 13 December 2019 and advised that the contractors had not completed the repairs. Since he was due to complete the property purchase, he requested compensation for the repairs which were not complete.

 

  1. On 20 December 2019, the Resident added another note to his complaint. He stated that the property had been in poor condition when he moved in and that the property suffered from mould and damp. He had kept the property freshly painted and cleaned although the silicone around the bath, floors and units was old and dirty. He detailed his previous complaint regarding his kitchen units, bathroom and damp issues.

 

  1. On 27 December 2019, the Resident emailed the Housing Ombudsman Service about his complaint. He advised that he had not received any further response from the Landlord and his repair issues were still outstanding.

 

  1. The Landlord issued a stage one response to the Resident’s complaint regarding his central heating on 9 January 2020; it stated the following:

 

  1. It confirmed that his complaint was about his central heating which had stopped working on 24 July 2019 and had been reported numerous times. It had attended the property the next day, and the engineer had found a blockage in the condensation pipe which was causing the boiler to lock into safety mode. They had advised the Resident that this blockage was due to food waste which had drained through the kitchen sink; the contractor advised that this may happen again if he continued to drain food through his kitchen sink.

 

  1. On 7 September 2019 the Resident had reported that he had no hot water and an engineer had attended the same day and found another blockage in the pipe. The engineer had carried out a temporary repair to reinstate the boiler and arranged a further appointment. On 11 September 2019, an engineer attended the property and unblocked the pipe once more.

 

  1. On 26 September 2019 the Resident had reported that his boiler was leaking. An engineer attended the same day and found that there was a slight leak and the pipe was partially blocked. They fitted a new food trap and renewed the blocked pipe. On 8 October 2019, an engineer attended to renew the trap.

 

  1. On 9 October 2019 the Resident reported a further leak on the boiler and discovered that food waste was blocking the pipe. The engineer advised that the pipe would need redirecting to avoid repeat repairs. An appointment was arranged for 14 October 2019 where the condenser pipe was redirected.

 

  1. An engineer attended on 9 November 2019 and found that both the heating and hot water were working. The system pressure was a little low, so this was topped up. An engineer attended on 22 November 2019 and found that the hot water heat exchanger was scaled up. They installed a replacement on Thursday 28 November 2019, and there had been no further repairs raised.  The Landlord explained that there had been a delay due to the delivery of the part requested.

 

  1.  The Landlord partially upheld the Resident’s complaint, since the pipe had been blocked by food waste; this could not be considered a boiler failure. An engineer attended on each occasion and cleared the blocked pipe to reinstate the boiler. The Landlord was unable to uphold his complaint on boiler failure as it was attributed to the blocked pipe by food. The length of time taken to renew the hot water, heat exchanger fell outside its Repair Policy timescale of three working days as this should have been completed by 27 November 2019, but the job was completed one day later.  It had now put processes in place to mitigate these issues occurring in the future. It stated that this delay was beyond its control and apologised for any inconvenience caused.

 

  1. The Resident became the leaseholder of the property on 20 January 2020. The Landlord wrote to the Resident on 27 February 2020 to advise that he had purchased his property and signed a Lease on 20 January 2020. He was now a leaseholder, which meant that he was directly responsible for the maintenance of the internal parts of his property. The Landlord would not continue with any repairs to the inner parts of his property, and he would be expected to hire contractors at his own cost for any issues. It stated in a separate letter that any repairs carried out to his property following this date were in error for which it apologised.

 

  1. The Resident escalated his complaint again on 4 February 2020 and requested that the Landlord change his kitchen units as they had been described as new in his Tenancy Agreement, but this was not the case. He stated that his bathroom toilet was leaking and the wall which covers the waste pipe was old and crumbling. This had been acknowledged when he had applied to buy the property. He stated that the house suffered from damp which he had reported when he first moved into the property, but no action had been taken. He requested that these issues be fixed by the Landlord or that the Landlord reimburse him for any costs associated with the repairs

 

  1. The Landlord issued its stage two response to the Resident on 9 March 2020 and stated the following:

 

  1. It summarised the background information regarding the Resident’s tenancy and his application to buy his property on 30 April 2019. It confirmed the lease began on 20 January 2020 and that he had been informed that he would be responsible for repairs in his home from that date.

 

  1. It advised that his further complaint escalation dated 4 February 2020 was considered late as it was made outside the 28-day timescale referred to in its stage one response. By the time this escalation had been received, the Resident had become the leaseholder of his property.

 

  1. Following its stage one investigation, the Landlord had advised its contractors to carry out several works to the Resident’s property; the contractor had attended the property on 17 October 2019 to renew the backing board to the base kitchen units; however, the Resident had advised he did not want this work completed until the mould issue had been resolved. The Landlord then sent the contractor to wash down any mould in the kitchen, and the Resident requested that the wall be broken to get to the root of the problem but this work was not agreed.

 

  1. In September 2019 the Resident had contacted the local authority to report the issues in his property, and his housing officer had raised a pest control request in October 2019.

 

  1. A new wash basin had been fitted in the Resident’s bathroom on 3 October 2019. The extractor fan renewal had originally been booked for 17 October 2019, although there was a delay in completing this work, which was subsequently completed on 25 November 2019. A contractor had attended on 11 November 2019 and renewed the bottom entry valve of the toilet cistern which was reconnected and secured.

 

  1. On 25 November 2019 the contractor had attended to paint the wall behind the units with mould wash paint. This was refused by the Resident as he requested the walls be cut and have new plasterboard fitted. The Resident did not want further work to be completed unless the plasterboard was renewed.

 

  1. Vents were due to be installed to the cupboard door to allow air movement on 25 November 2019, although the Resident refused this work as he wanted the plasterboard to be renewed.

 

  1. The Landlord stated that the kitchen was replaced in 2011 and the Landlord would not consider this for a further replacement until it was over 20 years old, which would not be until 2031 at the earliest. Since the Resident had now bought his property, it was not obliged to replace the kitchen at any point.

 

  1. It addressed the Resident’s further concerns in relation to his boiler, which had not been referenced in his stage 2 escalation. It referred to the repair history of his boiler and noted multiple visits by its gas contractor between July 2019 and November 2019. It stated that the last visit to the property was on 21 November 2019 in relation to a report of no hot water and this issue had been fixed prior to the Resident purchasing his property. The Landlord stated that if he was experiencing further issues, it would be his responsibility as a leaseholder to arrange any repairs by his own choice of contractor.

 

  1. The Landlord was unable to uphold the Resident’s complaint as the repairs were completed whilst the Resident was a tenant of the Landlord’s; as the Resident was now a leaseholder of the property, any maintenance and repair was his responsibility. The Landlord stated that it would not carry out any further repairs in the Resident’s home nor would it pay for any contractors the Resident decided to employ.

 

Assessment and findings

Repair works whilst the Resident was a tenant. 

 

  1. The Landlord was required to maintain the property in line with the terms of the Tenancy Agreement whilst the Resident was its tenant. Although, there was no requirement for the Landlord to repair the property because the resident was interested in buying it, and most non-essential repairs would stop once the resident had submitted their Right to Buy application. Once the Right to Buy process starts and the property had been valued, the Resident is entitled to minimum repairs to maintain habitable conditions in the property in accordance with the Tenancy Agreement. The Landlord is not obliged to complete any non-urgent repairs during this time.

 

  1. The Landlord’s Repair Policy states that emergency repairs should be completed within 24 hrs and include faults which constitute a safety hazard such as fire or flood, heating or hot water failure, interruptions to any main service such as electricity, gas or water and any sudden or unexpected disrepairs which may result in the deterioration of the structure of the property. Urgent repairs should be completed within five calendar days and would include leaking pipes, partial loss of water and any other repair issues which would result in damage to the structure of the property if left for any significant time. The Landlord would be expected to communicate clearly with the Resident at all stages of the Right to Buy process in regard to any repairs that would or would not be completed.

 

  1. The Landlord has stated that the Resident began the Right to Buy process on 17 April 2019 and that his application was admitted on 30 April 2019. The Resident has stated that the repair issues were apparent since he began his tenancy, with the exception of the damage to the kitchen sink unit, which he states was caused by a contractor when accessing the water supply handle. There is no evidence to suggest that these matters had been actively pursued until the time of the resident’s complaint in September 2019. At this time, the Landlord would not have been obliged to carry out any non-urgent repairs to the Resident’s property, because the Right to Buy process had begun. However, the landlord may have been responsible for remedying damage caused by its contractor.

 

  1. Whilst the Landlord was not obliged to carry out non-urgent repairs to the Resident’s property, it acted reasonably by arranging for a surveyor to inspect the repair issues in his property in September 2019 to see if any urgent repairs were required. The landlord then raised orders for work to be carried out to the Resident’s kitchen units, to renew the bathroom extractor fan, to insulate the toilet cistern to prevent condensation, and to fit vents to the door of his cupboard to prevent damp, thereby setting expectations that the work would be completed.

 

  1. The Landlord offered a reasonable explanation as to why it would not replace the kitchen completely as this had been completed in 2011 and it would not consider a further replacement until the kitchen was over 20 years old, which would be 2031 at the earliest. It is noted that since the Resident is now a leaseholder, it would not be obliged to carry out this work in the future. In addition, it was reasonable that the outstanding repair works were not carried out and cancelled pending the completion of the purchase, as the Resident would be responsible for all internal works to the property once he became a leaseholder. Although there is no evidence to suggest this was explained to the Resident at the time of cancellation or clearly communicated. This lack of clarity may have caused uncertainty and inconvenience to the resident.

 

  1. The landlord offered to replace the backboard of the kitchen sink base unit that the resident alleged had been damaged by its contractor. It attended to complete the repair on 17 October 2019 and returned on 25 November 2019 at the resident’s request to complete a mould wash prior to repairing the unit. At this time the resident refused to allow the landlord to carry out the works to the cupboard backboard, requesting that the plasterboard behind the units be replaced to address the mould.

 

  1. The Ombudsman is satisfied that the landlord made a reasonable offer of redress by offering to repair the sink unit backboard. It was reasonable for the Landlord to refuse to replace the Resident’s plasterboard in this area and throughout the property as this would be considered a major repair work for which the Landlord was not obliged to do as it would not be considered to be urgent. However, as above there is no evidence to suggest that the Landlord had explained why it would not carry out the replacement of plasterboard throughout the property at this time.

 

  1. There has been service failure by the Landlord in respect of its communication with the Resident regarding non-urgent repair works.  This Service would not expect the Landlord to pay towards these repairs as the Resident is now a leaseholder and is responsible for any repair work to the internal parts of his property. Nonetheless, the Landlord should offer an award of compensation to recognise the inconvenience and distress caused as a result of its lack of explanation regarding its obligations and cancellation of repair works.

 

The Resident’s boiler repair issues as a tenant

 

  1. As above, during the Right to Buy process, the Landlord would be obliged to carry out emergency and urgent repairs to the property. Issues regarding loss of heating or hot water would be considered an emergency repair and should be attended to within 24 hrs. Any issues related to water leaks would be considered an urgent repair and should be attended to within five days, in line with the landlord’s Repairs Policy. Wherever possible, the contractor is expected to complete the repair on the first visit and the Landlord was responsible for any boiler and heating installations whilst the Resident was a tenant, in line with the Tenancy Agreement.

 

  1. In its stage one response regarding the Resident’s boiler issues, the Landlord has noted that at least ten appointments were made by its contractors and out-of- hours contractors. These had been attended to in order to repair issues surrounding the pipe which links the Resident’s kitchen sink to his boiler. The Resident was made aware that the main issue was caused by food waste blocking the pipe on the first visit in July 2019. The final appointment took place on 28 November 2019 where the flow of the kitchen waste pipe was redirected to prevent future problems; it was noted that no further repair requests were raised following this appointment. The Landlord apologised that this last appointment was a day over its published timescale due to a delay in the delivery of a required part. Whilst it would have caused some inconvenience, this delay was not significant and therefore an apology represents reasonable redress for this issue and the landlord is not required to do any more.

 

  1. Whilst the Landlord’s contractors had attended the property on all but one emergency visit within 24 hours in line with its Repair Policy, the underlying issue was not put right until November 2019. This resulted in a number of appointments between July and November 2019 and disturbances which would have likely inconvenienced the Resident. There is no evidence to suggest that the Landlord had understood this issue to be a recurring problem for the Resident or taken the suitable action at an earlier opportunity. The Landlord did not uphold the Resident’s complaint regarding his boiler as the issue was found to be due to food waste, which the Resident had been made aware of. Whilst the Resident could have taken steps to decrease the amount of food waste draining down the kitchen sink, the landlord could have fitted a food trap sooner, to help reduce the problem. It would have been appropriate for the Landlord to acknowledge the inconvenience caused by multiple visits which did not fix the underlying issue and recognise its service failure in relation to this.

 

  1. This Service would not expect the Landlord to now pay or compensate the Resident for any repair issues related to his boiler or piping as the issue had been resolved whilst the Resident was a tenant. As a leaseholder, the Resident is now responsible for maintaining these installations and it is his discretion as to what work he carries out independently. Going forward, the Landlord should also take steps to share information with its contractors to ensure they understand the historical repair issues when attending a property to fix any underlying issue at the earliest opportunity.

 

 

 

Repair works when the Resident became a leaseholder. 

 

  1. The Lease Agreement states that the Landlord would be obliged to carry out any repair work needed to the external structure and internal common areas of the building. The Leaseholder would be responsible for keeping the property in good repair and where necessary repair any fixtures and fittings, including drains, pipes and any other fittings installed for the provision of water, gas and electricity. The leaseholder would also be responsible for any decoration work, plastering or work to the internal parts of the property. From 20 January 2020 the Resident became responsible for the repairs and maintenance of the inside of his home as a leaseholder.

 

  1. The Resident has requested that the Landlord carry out the further repairs to the internal parts of his property or compensate him to hire his own contractors for works which had not been completed before he bought the property. The Landlord has stated that since the Resident is now a leaseholder, he would be responsible for these works and it would not be obliged to carry out any repair works.

 

  1. The state of repair of the property would be reflected in the valuation of the property. If there were concerns about the cost of potential repairs, the Resident would have had the opportunity to arrange a detailed survey on the property before he completed the purchase and any changes could potentially be made to the valuation accordingly. As a leaseholder, the Resident would be responsible for the costs of all internal repairs and maintenance regardless of the condition of the property when it was purchased. It was the Resident’s responsibility to seek advice on the condition of the property before he completed the purchase.  There is evidence to suggest that the Resident knew of the repair issues in the property since the beginning of his tenancy in 2016, therefore any repair issues would have been apparent when he began his Right to Buy application and could have been addressed with the Landlord at an earlier date. As explained above, This Service cannot make a determination based on the sales process or whether the Resident was misinformed during this process. We can look at whether the Landlord acted reasonably and in line with its policies which in this case it has.

 

The Landlord’s complaint handling of these matters. 

 

  1. The Landlord’s Complaint Policy states that it has a two-stage process for handling complaints and a complaint can be made through its online portal. The initial complaint should be acknowledged by the Landlord within three working days and a stage one response would be sent within 20 working days. The complaint can be escalated to stage two via the online portal if the resident remains dissatisfied; the Landlord has an additional 25 working days to respond to a stage two complaint.

 

  1. It is noted that the Resident raised multiple complaints and notes through the Landlord’s online portal and received many automated replies advising of a 10-day response time. There is no evidence to suggest that the Resident received a response within the 10-day period. The Landlord’s initial stage one response should have considered the Resident’s concerns regarding his central heating to prevent any further time and trouble to the Resident in having to raise this complaint again because he had not received a response. The Landlord provided a response to the Resident’s complaint regarding his boiler on 9 January 2020, which is 40 working days after the complaint had been acknowledged on 11 November 2019; this was an unreasonable delay and the Landlord has not provided a suitable explanation as to why this did not meet the timescales set out in its Complaints Policy.  After receiving communication from this Service, the Landlord addressed the Resident’s initial complaint at stage two of its internal complaints process. This response stated that it had received the Resident’s escalation request on 4 February 2020, and this was considered ‘late’ as it was beyond the 28-day timescale for escalating complaints stated in its stage one response. This was inappropriate as there is clear evidence that the Resident continued to pursue his complaint on multiple occasions between October 2019 and December 2019 on the Landlord’s online portal; there is no evidence to suggest he had received a response from the Landlord during this time.

 

  1. The landlord’s complaint response should have addressed the resident’s complaint that its contractor had caused damage to the sink base unit when completing a repair to the water supply handle. The landlord did not evidence that it had investigated this aspect of the complaint or referred the resident’s complaint to its contractor for comment. The landlord did, however, identify that works were required to the sink unit backboard following the formal complaint and arrange for the damage to be put right. This work was refused by the resident as he believed that more extensive works were necessary to address the damp before replacing the sink unit backboard. The Ombudsman is therefore satisfied that the landlord made reasonable efforts to resolve this aspect of the complaint.

 

  1. The Landlord should write to the Resident and apologise for its handling of his complaints; it should also offer an award of compensation in recognition of the time and trouble taken to pursue the complaint and the inconvenience this may have caused. It is recommended that the Landlord takes steps to improve the management of its online portal in relation to complaints to ensure these are handled in a timely manner going forward.

 

 

Determination (decision)

  1. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was service failure by the Landlord in respect of its handling of repairs related to damp and mould, boiler and sink whilst the Resident was a tenant.

 

  1. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was no maladministration by the Landlord in respect of its handling of repair works after the Resident became a leaseholder.

 

  1. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was service failure by the Landlord in respect of its complaint handling of these matters.

Reasons

Repairs related to damp and mould

 

44. The Landlord should have communicated clearly with the Resident and explained its obligations regarding repair work during the Right to Buy process in order to manage the Resident’s expectations. The Landlord did not fully explain why the plasterboard would not be replaced or why further repairs were cancelled as a result of the pending purchase of the property. It could have provided clear communication regarding its obligations with the Resident to prevent any uncertainty. This Service would not expect the Landlord to pay towards these repairs as the Resident is now a leaseholder and is responsible for any repair work to the internal parts of his property. Although the Landlord should offer an award of compensation to recognise the inconvenience and distress caused as a result of its lack of explanation regarding its obligations and cancellation of repair works. 

 

Repairs related to the boiler and kitchen sink

 

45. The Landlord should have acknowledged the issue regarding the Resident’s kitchen waste pipe to be a recurring problem and acted accordingly. The Resident has been inconvenienced by multiple appointments that did not correct the underlying issue, which has not been acknowledged by the Landlord. As above, The Ombudsman would not   expect the Landlord to compensate the Resident for any further repair work needed as he is now the Leaseholder of the property. However to prevent similar situations in the future, the Landlord should take steps to ensure its contractors are aware of the historical repairs at its properties so as to approach a repair issue in an informed way.

 

 

 

 

Repair works when the Resident became a leaseholder.

 

46. The Landlord acted appropriately and in line with the Lease Agreement by stating that it would not carry out further repair works to the Resident’s property now he had become the leaseholder. The Landlord is not obliged to carry out repairs to the internal parts of the Resident’s property; the Resident accepted the property and responsibility for any repair issues when he signed the Lease Agreement. Any additional costs incurred as a result of hiring contractors would be the Resident’s responsibility. 

 

The Landlord’s complaint handling.

 

47. The Landlord did not act in line with its Complaint Policy and failed to acknowledge the Resident’s complaints and escalations on multiple occasions. By failing to address the Resident’s concerns in a timely way, the Landlord caused the Resident undue inconvenience and he had needed to spend additional time requesting responses to his complaint, which could have been prevented.

Orders

 

48. The Ombudsman orders that the following actions be carried out within four weeks:

 

49. The Landlord is to write to Resident to apologise for its service failures in the handling of his complaint.

 

50. The Landlord is to pay the Resident £200 comprised of:

 

a.  £100 for the uncertainty and inconvenience caused by the Landlord’s communication in relation to repairs whilst Resident was a tenant.

 

b. £50 for the inconvenience caused by multiple appointments needed to fix the pipe issues in relation to the Resident’s boiler.

 

c.  £50 for the inconvenience caused by its complaint handling

 

Recommendations

 

51. It is recommended that the Landlord take steps to make any Right to Buy applicants aware of its repair obligations whilst the sale is in progress, to avoid setting false expectations.

 

52. It is recommended that the Landlord take steps to improve the management of its online complaints portal to ensure complaints are handled in a timely way.