Waltham Forest Council (202124993)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202124993

Waltham Forest Council

26 July 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 handling of the resident’s reports about the shower door at the property.

Background

  1. In August 2021, the resident, who is a secure tenant of the landlord, raised reports about an issue with a shower door. The issue remained outstanding, and on 25 October 2021, the resident submitted his formal complaint. He highlighted his concern that the door was a safety hazard. He also explained that a contractor had informed him that the door needed replacing, and that the repair was classified as resident responsibility. The resident also included in his complaint a report of an issue with the entrance door to the bathroom.
  2. The landlord’s final response was issued on 6 January 2022, in which it identified several failures in its handling of the resident’s complaint. It acknowledged that these failures had led to delays in managing the repair of the shower. The landlord also identified that it had not acted in accordance with its complaints policy by not providing a formal stage one response. The landlord offered a total of £400 compensation. This was broken down to: £200 for the delay of four months in repairing the shower, £100 for distress and inconvenience caused, and £100 for the time and trouble in pursuing the complaint. It also advised that it had requested for the work to be completed no later than the end of January 2022.
  3. As part of correspondence with this Service, the resident confirmed on 2 February 2022 that the work had been completed. However, the resident remained dissatisfied and sought a higher amount of compensation.

Assessment and findings

Policies & Procedures

  1. The landlord’s Repairs Policy states that routine repairs are to be completed within 21 calendar days.
  2. Appendix B of the landlord’s Repairs Policy states that the resident is responsible for the repair of doors and frames.
  3. Section 7 of the landlord’s Compensation Policy states that claims for personal injury ‘should be directed to contacting the council’s Insurance and Risk Team’.
  4. Section 11(g) of the landlord’s Compensation Policy states that ‘A remedy payment for distress is often a moderate sum of between £100 and £300’.
  5. Section 11(i) of the landlord’s Compensation Policy states that ‘The remedy payment for time and trouble is unlikely to be less than £100 or more than £300’.

Scope of Investigation

  1. The resident has referenced how the landlord’s failure to repair the shower door had caused his wife injury. The Ombudsman cannot draw conclusions on the causation of, or liability for, impacts on health and wellbeing, or personal injury. This would be more usually dealt with as a personal injury claim through the courts. The courts can call on medical experts and make legally binding judgements. Nonetheless, consideration has been given to the general distress and inconvenience which the situation may have caused the resident. This is in accordance with paragraph 39(i) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme which says the Ombudsman will not investigate 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.
  2. The resident’s complaint to this Service included concerns regarding damp and mould, and electrics within the property. This Service cannot investigate aspects of a complaint which have not exhausted a member landlord’s complaint procedure. This is because the landlord needs to be given the opportunity to investigate and formally respond. The resident will need to contact the landlord and, if appropriate, raise a separate complaint to get this matter resolved.
  3. The resident also included in his stage one complaint an issue with the bathroom entrance door. However, email correspondence shows that the landlord advised the resident that he was responsible for repairs to doors inside the property, as confirmed in appendix B of the landlord’s Repairs Policy. The issue was not included in his complaint escalation, and therefore did not exhaust the landlord’s complaints procedure. As mentioned above, the resident will need to contact the landlord and, if appropriate, raise a separate complaint to get this matter resolved.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports about the shower door

  1. In August 2021, the resident brought to the landlord’s attention an issue with the shower door at the property. The resident said in his complaint that multiple contractors had attended and that he had also tried to fix the shower door himself. However, although this was not disputed by the landlord, the landlord did not provided any correspondence with the resident, or contractor reports/notes from this period.
  2. The Ombudsman would expect the landlord to keep a robust record of contacts and repairs, yet the evidence has not been comprehensive in this case. It is vital that landlords keep clear, accurate and easily accessible records to provide an audit trail. If the Ombudsman investigates a complaint, this Service will ask for the landlord’s records. If there is disputed evidence and no audit trail, it may be difficult to conclude that an action took place or that the landlord followed its own policies and procedures. Additionally, it is important to understand what expectations were set by the landlord, and to what extent the landlord attempted to act in line with the set expectations.
  3. On 15 October 2021, a contractor attended the property to assess the shower door. However, the contractor told the resident that he was responsible for making the repair as he had fitted the bathroom himself. This information was incorrect, as the property had been part of the landlord’s Loft Conversion Programme, in which the bathroom had been fitted. The landlord’s informal stage one response (22 November 2021) explained that the materials used were not of the landlord’s specification, and therefore the contractor was under the impression that the resident had installed the bathroom himself. This caused further unnecessary delay in identifying and issuing the repair.
  4. It is vital that the landlord ensures that its contractors are adequately informed of any relevant information regarding the potential repair of a property. As the landlord ultimately holds the overall repair responsibilities of the property, it is the landlord’s duty to communicate all relevant information to its contractors, in order to minimise the delay in performing repairs. Its failure to do so, caused further delay in the issue being identified and rectified, causing unnecessary frustration to the resident.
  5. Additionally, this led to the resident having to be unnecessarily involved in pursuing the repair, by having to chase the landlord. As part of the informal stage one response, the landlord acknowledged and apologised for stating that the resident had installed the bathroom himself. It also said that it recognised and apologised for the inconvenience this administrative error had caused.
  6. In an internal email, the landlord was asked to explain how it would prevent this error from occurring again. The landlord said that ‘When such a request is received, clear instruction will be given to [the contractor] and the operative that a property has been subject to a loft conversion programme’. This is in line with this Service’s dispute resolution principles, which suggests that ‘Where possible [this Service] adds value by looking beyond the circumstances of the individual complaint and considering whether anything can be improved in terms of process and systems’. It is promising that the landlord has shown an intent to learn from the mistake, and to ensure that it will take extra care to communicate the correct information regarding similar repairs in the future.
  7. On 16 December 2021, a contractor attended the property in order to fix the door, but noticed that there was an issue with the shower tray. This would need to be fixed in order for the shower door to be fixed, and for new shower screens to be fitted. Following the identification of the issue, the landlord’s Repairs Policy states that routine repairs are to be completed within 21 calendar days. As the issues with the shower tray were identified on 16 December 2021, it should have been fixed by 6 January 2022. However, the landlord failed to issue the repair by this time. The landlord’s final response was issued on 6 January 2022 in which it advised the resident that it had asked the contractor to ensure that the work was completed no later than the end of the month.
  8. This was an attempt by the landlord to manage the resident’s expectations. Managing the resident’s expectations is vital as it lets the resident know what to expect in terms of timeframes and commitments in issuing the repair. Managing the resident’s expectations can go a long way in improving the landlord/tenant relationship. However, failure to adhere to the expectations set can have a very negative impact on this relationship. Additionally, it can enhance further distrust as well as more stress and inconvenience caused to the resident.
  9. On 20 January 2022, the resident emailed the landlord to state that a contractor had attended regarding the shower door, but said that it wanted to install a different door to the one that had been agreed. This is another example of where it is important for the landlord to provide contractor notes from visits to the property. Its failure to do so makes this Service unable to determine the reasoning for the contractor’s decision to install a different door. Had this reasoning been provided, this Service would perhaps have been able to determine whether this change was necessary. This is important as the change in door led to further delay in the repair being issued.
  10. The landlord’s final response acknowledged several failures in its response to the resident’s reports. It acknowledged that it had not followed its procedure in terms of responding to the resident’s stage one complaint. The landlord had treated the stage one complaint as an informal complaint as it believed it could be solved without a formal investigation, and was more of a service request. However, the landlord’s procedure states that the resident is to be informed of this decision. The landlord acknowledged that it failed to make the resident aware of this.
  11. It is important for the landlord to act within accordance of the policies and procedures that have been set out. Additionally, the complaint was not just a service request, but highlighted that the resident had pursued the repair since August 2021. With this in mind, the complaint should have initially been treated as a formal complaint.
  12. Additionally, the landlord did not respond to the resident’s concern that the faulty door was a health hazard, particularly for his wife who is blind. In the resident’s formal complaint, he explained that he was concerned that it posed a risk to his wife as it could potentially fall on her. The landlord would be expected to respond to this aspect of the complaint in order to reassure the resident that the safety of tenants was the landlord’s responsibility. Had the landlord done this, it would have improved trust between the tenant and the landlord, and potentially improved the tenant/landlord relationship, as the landlord would have shown that it was taking the resident’s concerns seriously and putting his partner’s vulnerability at the centre of its service delivery.
  13. The landlord acknowledged that the handling of the shower door had been ‘poor’, which had led to delays and appointments not going ahead. It also acknowledged that at the time of the final response, the repair had been outstanding for four months. The landlord offered a total of £400 compensation for the failures. It offered £50 for each month of delay (£200), £100 for distress and inconvenience, and £100 for time and trouble in pursuing the complaint.
  14. This offer of compensation was in line with its Compensation Policy. Section 11(g) of the landlord’s Compensation Policy states that ‘A remedy payment for distress is often a moderate sum of between £100 and £300’. Additionally, Section 11(i) of the landlord’s Compensation Policy states that ‘The remedy payment for time and trouble is unlikely to be less than £100 or more than £300’. It should also be noted that this Service’s remedies guidance states that payments of £250 to £700 are reasonable for instances in which there was ‘A failure over a considerable period of time to act in accordance with policy – for example to address repairs’. Given that the resident confirmed the repair was finalised towards the end of January, as the landlord had suggested it would be, this offer of compensation constitutes reasonable redress.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 55(b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord has made an offer of redress prior to investigation which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, resolves the complaint satisfactorily.

Orders and recommendations

  1. It is recommended that the landlord conducts a review of its record keeping practises in order to ensure that all contractor notes and correspondence with the resident are clear and readily available, in order to provide a detailed audit trail.