Westminster City Council (202005342)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202005342

Westminster City Council

11 February 2021

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

This complaint is about the landlord’s handling of:

the resident’s reports of outstanding repairs;
an offer of temporary accommodation it made to the resident;
concerns the resident raised about its offer of a deep clean of his home.

Background and summary of events

Background

The resident holds a secure tenancy that began on 7 August 2005. The landlord is a local authority and the property has been described as a 1-bedroom ground floor flat within a terraced house.
The resident has mobility issues that led to the landlord fitting a specialist toilet during 2016 and the landlord has confirmed that it has recorded the mobility issues on its housing records. The resident has advised the landlord of other health problems on several occasions during the course of this complaint.
The tenancy agreement shows that the landlord is responsible for keeping in good working order the structure of the property, equipment for sanitation and heating and the fittings related to supplying water, gas and electricity.
The landlord has a Tenant Handbook that further sets out responsibilities for repairs. It confirms it is responsible for repairs to items such as boilers and radiators while the resident is responsible for items such as doorbells and cupboard handles. For repairs that are the landlord’s responsibility, it categorises these as ‘immediate’ (to be completed within 24 hours), ‘urgent’ (3 days) or ‘non urgent’ (28 days).

It adds that:

‘Residents are required to maintain their own individual garden in order to ensure it looks acceptable and does not cause a nuisance to their neighbours.’

The Tenant Handbook states that ‘If you have to move because of improvement works you may be eligible for compensation or help with your removal expenses.’ The landlord also has a Decant Policy that sets out the procedure the landlord should follow in organising ‘swift temporary or permanent relocation’ of residents. Once it has decided a move may be needed, the landlord is required to interview the resident, complete a checklist and arrange a move.
The landlord has a 2-stage complaints process with responses required within 10 working days for both stages. Its Complaints Handling Guide has facility for compensation awards where there has been ‘inconvenience’ due to service failure. It has a separate Compensation & Payment Schemes Policy that offers guidance on amounts that can be awarded.
The resident submitted a legal disrepair application on 26 March 2019 and, based on evidence seen by this Service, that process is ongoing and is linked to a building insurance claim that has also been made. The handling of these repairs – subsidence, heating, hot water and pest control proofing works – will therefore not be considered in this investigation although they may be referenced to provide context.

Summary of Events

The landlord wrote to the resident in November 2018 to advise that major works would be commencing to the property as part of a major works project and pre-start surveys would shortly be undertaken (the works were stated to include external repairs, including to doors, windows and the roof where needed). Two chasers were sent to the resident later in November 2018 due to a lack of contact from the resident to arrange the survey.
There are internal landlord emails from January 2019 (relating to boiler repairs) that indicate contractors had Health and Safety concerns over the condition of the property and their ability to work within the flat.
The resident made the previously mentioned legal disrepair claim on 26 March 2019 that referenced subsidence, heating and hot water and pest control proofing works.
The landlord’s repairs records show that jobs were raised on 27 March 2019 to attend to an extractor fan, a window repair and some plastering. These jobs were all subsequently cancelled with the landlord noting that the resident was not expecting the contractors on the date(s) they attended, namely 8 April 2019, 30 April 2019 and 14 May 2019. It was added that the resident had been in hospital so the jobs were cancelled until he was ‘back on his feet’.
The landlord has provided records to show that cracks at the property were being monitored from at least April 2019 (to June 2020) as part of subsidence investigations.
The landlord’s repairs records show that it attended the property on 9 May 2019 to ensure that the front door lock was working after an emergency services forced entry.
The resident submitted an online complaint form on 4 June 2019, asking for repair works to be done. He mentioned the need for front door locks to be fitted (following the forced entry), an air vent to be fixed, the front room window to be attended to, a doorbell to be fixed, a new cupboard door handle to be fitted, a hole in the wall by the meter cupboard to be repaired, the bedroom carpet (damaged by a radiator leak) to be renewed and the garden to be cleared.
The landlord responded to the complaint on 18 June 2019. It advised that a disrepair inspector would conduct a survey given they were already involved in dealing with the ongoing disrepair claim. The resident was told to submit any further repair concerns via his solicitor.
An email from the major works contractor on 26 July 2019 shows that it inspected the resident’s property the day before and that the resident had made a request for a temporary decant given his health concerns.
The landlord produced a decant checklist document on 15 August 2019. It noted that the resident had informed it of respiratory issues due to health conditions and that the resident could not make his own arrangements. It added that there were medical factors to be considered such as the resident’s mobility issues. A preference for a ground floor property within the borough was recorded and it was mentioned that a special toilet existed in his home.
The landlord produced a schedule of works on 4 September 2019 that it later stated (in internal emails) was based on an inspection it carried out on 5 July 2019. It noted that the schedule was for works that were unrelated to the disrepair claim but which the disrepair surveyor had concluded required attention – these were to overhaul the WC cistern, renew a doorbell and night latch, repair an external door frame, renew a cupboard door handle and re-plaster a section of wall.
The landlord’s repairs records show that the jobs were raised on 4 September 2019 to repair the front door, overhaul the WC cistern, re-plaster a wall, fit a doorbell and fit a cupboard door handle. Records were made of no access on 11 October 2019 and 19 November 2019. It was noted that an operative had attended on 11 November 2019 but that the job was referred back due to hygiene concerns.
Contractors wrote to the landlord on 11 November 2019 to advise that they had not been able to complete works that day for hygiene reasons. Further, the landlord has provided an undated report from the contractor that appears to provide its version of events related to the appointment on 11 November 2019. This report shows that the operative attended but had concerns about the ability for works to progress given the condition of the property. It set out that the operative had informed the resident he would not be able to carry out works that day.
The resident submitted on online complaint form on 24 November 2019. This related to events on 11 November 2019 when the resident reported that an operative had attended his property but did not know what works he was due to carry out. The resident claimed that the operative stated he needed to go away and obtain materials and said he would return but never did. The resident requested a written apology, compensation and the completion of repair works without further delay.
The landlord contacted its contractor on 27 November 2019 to state that it was unacceptable that the works that had been raised as additional to the disrepair claim were still outstanding, a few months after being raised. The contractor replied to advise that it understood the landlord and itself would first be pre-inspecting given the previously identified hygiene concerns.
An internal landlord email on 4 December 2019 indicates that it spoke to the resident’s mother and the resident to try to ensure access for completion of repairs but it later became apparent that the resident was in hospital.
The landlord issued a Stage 1 complaint response on 16 December 2019. It acknowledged the failure of the operative to return to the resident’s home and apologised for this. It added that it had raised the matter with its contract manager. It was not confirmed what works the operative was scheduled to carry out but it was added that there were structural repair issues ‘pending the final assessment by the insurance company as part of the current disrepair case’ and that external works had instead been scheduled for 20 December 2019. An offer was also made for a ‘deep clean’ to ensure the property was ready for ‘in-flat works’.
The landlord’s contractor recorded within an internal email of 14 January 2020 that the resident had cancelled an appointment for the following day due to a hospital appointment.
A note was made on the landlord’s repairs records in February 2020 that the contractor needed assistance from the landlord due to the resident’s mobility issues.
The landlord wrote to the resident on 10 February 2020, noting that it had made an offer of temporary accommodation but that the resident had rejected it on the grounds of the toilet facilities not meeting his needs. It instead stated that it would now be assisting the resident to remain in his home during works.
The resident submitted an escalated complaint by email on 16 March 2020. His concerns were:

he stated he had been left vulnerable as a disabled person by the operative asking him to leave his door open all day on 11 November 2019 and felt the apology was insufficient
he requested more details about the deep clean offer
despite his illness, he claimed the landlord had decided he should remain in the property while works were carried out and had made an inappropriate offer of a studio flat

The landlord noted on its repairs records in April 2020 that the target date for the repairs raised in September 2019 had been extended with Covid-19 listed as the reason.
Internal landlord emails from April 2020 indicate that it endeavoured to establish, as part of its Stage 2 complaint investigation, when it had offered the resident temporary accommodation, who was responsible for the offer and what information they held about the resident’s needs at the time of the offer. In the meantime, the landlord sent holding responses to the resident on 9 April 2020 (giving a revised response date of 23 April 2020) and 15 May 2020 (stating it would provide the response as soon as possible).
Internal landlord emails from May 2020 show that the landlord noted the property was subject to both a disrepair claim and an insurance claim for potential subsidence.
The landlord issued a Stage 2 complaint response on 15 May 2020. It upheld the complaint and made the following specific conclusions:

Operative who left property on 11 November 2019 – the landlord expanded on its previous apologies and gave further information about how it had addressed the matter with its contractor and had taken steps to ensure that this type of situation did not occur again
Deep clean – the landlord apologised for the lack of clear information about this offer and stated that a cleaning assessment would need to be undertaken to offer exact details
Temporary accommodation – the landlord apologised that the housing officers who had undertaken the temporary accommodation offer were unaware of the specialist toilet that had been fitted in 2016; it stated that it had taken this on as a learning point but that contractors were now working with the resident to try to progress the major works with him in the property

The landlord reiterated its apologies and offered £25 compensation in recognition of a lack of communication and poor joined-up working.

The landlord recorded on its repairs records in June 2020 that the works raised in September 2019 were cancelled on the grounds that the contractor had refused to carry them out.
The resident wrote to the landlord on 22 June 2020, providing information about the works to his home:

Garden – the resident advised that the garden should have been cleared out completely but had grown back on 4 occasions
Air vent – the resident advised he had reported over a year previously that this was damaged and allowing pests to enter the property
Front window – the resident advised that the living room window was rotten and the glass was on the verge of falling out
Boiler – the resident advised that the landlord had eventually decided to renew his boiler but had left damage to the wall for a year
Windows – the resident advised that all windows in the property needed attention as they were not possible to open, particularly the bedroom one
Rehousing – the resident disputed that the team who were going to re-house him (for external works to be carried out) were unaware of his needs as a disabled person

The landlord’s repairs records show that it raised garden clearance works on 23 July 2020 – the notes indicate this job was completed on 6 August 2020.
An email from a major works contractor on 16 September 2020 showed that the resident had again raised the possibility of a temporary decant due to his health conditions and that the landlord was asked to assist. The landlord noted the following day that it was still looking to locate alternative accommodation but that this had proven difficult.
When the resident spoke to this Service in October 2020, he provided updates on the repairs. He stated that some of the garden work had been completed but that tall trees still needed to be trimmed. He added that a radiator had been left in the property and needed to be moved, windows still required repair, a bedroom air vent was broken, a damaged carpet needed renewal and the hole in the wall by the boiler had still not been remedied.
Internal landlord emails from December 2020 indicate that the landlord was aware major works had been impacted by the ongoing insurance claim and that there had been a ‘disconnect in communication’ between the different sets of works.

Assessment and findings

In reaching a decision we consider whether the landlord has kept to the law, followed proper procedure and good practice, and acted in a reasonable way. Our duty is to determine complaints by reference to what is, in this Service’s opinion, fair in all the circumstances of the case.

Repairs

As stated previously, the repairs matters that are the subject of the resident’s disrepair claim have not been investigated here. This report therefore makes no assessment of the landlord’s handling of repairs that are related to heating (including radiator repairs), hot water, subsidence or pest control proofing works. It may be beneficial for the landlord to explain to the resident under which process it is considering his concerns (see recommendations below).
The resident made the disrepair claim in March 2019 but the landlord also raised jobs for other repairs to be completed, including to an extractor fan, windows and plastering. It has recorded attempts made to gain access to carry out these works during April-May 2019 but that these were unsuccessful and the jobs were cancelled due to the resident’s ill health. It was reasonable for the landlord to make multiple attempts to carry out these works and to cancel the order when the resident informed it that he was not ready for works to proceed.
The resident raised some of these same repairs issues again in June 2019, together with others such as the need for new front door locks and a doorbell as well as an air vent, new cupboard door handle and a garden clearance. The landlord stated that it would send a disrepair surveyor to the property, given the pre-existing disrepair claim, and its records show that this inspection was carried out on 5 July 2019. This was a reasonable approach to respond to the resident’s reports. Some of the repairs were potentially the responsibility of the resident according to the Tenant Handbook – the landlord’s decision to send a surveyor to the property and raise works demonstrates it was resolution-focused and used its discretion appropriately.
However, although the survey was undertaken on 5 July 2019 and the landlord acknowledged there were works it needed to conduct outside of the disrepair process, its repairs records indicate that no works were raised until 4 September 2019. This meant that the repairs completion timescale was outside of the landlord’s Tenant Handbook guidance (of 28 days for non-urgent repairs) even before the landlord had passed the jobs to its contractors – this was inappropriate. In addition, some of the matters reported by the resident (for instance, the living room air vent, carpet renewal, front room windows and garden clearance) were not part of the works raised on 4 September 2019 and this Service has not been provided with any evidence as to why or that it explained this decision to the resident. This was unreasonable as it meant that the landlord failed to address these issues or offer clarity to the resident on what works it was taking responsibility for.
When the landlord considered the resident’s November 2019 complaint, it investigated the reasons for the operative’s actions on 11 November 2019. It obtained a report from the contractor to understand its version of events. It subsequently wrote to the resident and apologised for the failure of the operative to return to site and offered a deep clean of the property (see paragraph 54). When it reviewed the events again through the escalated complaint, it expanded on the apologies previously made and assured the resident that lessons had been learned. Given it did not have evidence of exactly what was said at the time of the visit, these were appropriate responses to the concerns raised by the resident about the operative’s conduct albeit these explanations failed to address the delays in the repairs being raised (as per paragraph 43).
There were further delays from September 2019 in repairs being progressed and some of these repairs still appear to be outstanding. This was acknowledged internally by the landlord in November 2019 but, based on the evidence provided to this Service, no detailed apology or explanation for these repairs delays has ever been offered to the resident. It may be that the landlord’s ability to complete some of these repairs has been impacted by the ongoing disrepair claim and subsidence investigations but the landlord has not offered any clarity to the resident on the reasons for delays, what specific repairs it intended to conduct outside of the disrepair claim and when he may expect these to be completed. This is unreasonable and will inevitably have caused the resident uncertainty and frustration.
In mitigation, some of the period of delay was apparently due to contractors being concerned about hygiene issues (November 2019), the resident being unwell or in hospital (during December 2019 to January 2020) and Covid-19 restrictions (from March 2020). However, the landlord was aware of potential hygiene issues at the property as early as January 2019 but has failed to demonstrate it was pro-active in attempting to manage these until December 2019. Further, there has been confusion between the landlord and its contractors as to how the repairs would be advanced – in November 2019, the contractors told the landlord that it had been awaiting the landlord’s further instructions given the hygiene issues and the jobs were cancelled in June 2020 on the grounds that the contractor had refused to carry them out. This was unreasonable – had the landlord been pro-active and communicated better with its contractors, some of the delay may have been avoided.
In summary, there was delay from June 2019 to date in a range of repairs to the resident’s property being undertaken that the landlord decided were separate to the ongoing disrepair claim. This was partly due to factors outside of the landlord’s control but it did contribute to the delay by failing to raise the works promptly, failing to foresee and address the Health & safety concerns the contractor encountered and failing to communicate effectively with its contractor. The landlord has offered compensation of £25 in recognition of the failures it identified though the complaints process but this is not sufficient redress given the lengthy period of delay and the efforts the resident had to take to chase progress.

Temporary Accommodation Offer

The temporary accommodation offer made by the landlord related to planned major works that it notified the resident of in November 2018. The landlord’s major works contractor became aware in July 2019 of the resident’s preference to be moved to temporary accommodation during the works, on the grounds of the potential impact on his medical condition. The contractor referred this to the landlord who arranged for officers to interview the resident and complete a decant checklist – these actions were reasonable and in line with the landlord’s Decant Policy.
The landlord’s decant checklist of August 2019 reflected the resident’s medical concerns and highlighted that there was a specialist toilet in the property. The landlord has not demonstrated evidence that it reviewed this situation again until 11 February 2020 when it wrote to the resident to state that, as he had rejected a temporary address offer on the grounds of lack of appropriate toilet facilities, it would be supporting him to remain in the property. This was unreasonable – the landlord was aware that the resident had a specialist toilet but still offered a temporary property that did not have this facility without explaining why it had done so. This Service has not been provided with evidence to demonstrate that the landlord engaged with the resident to discuss his needs. Given the resident’s known health issues, it would have been reasonable for the landlord to take steps to explore potential resolutions with the resident rather than informing him that he would need to stay in the property – this was a heavy-handed approach and unreasonable given the resident’s stated health concerns.
The landlord reviewed its actions in April-May 2020 when it apologised, explained that it had learned lessons from this case and advised that it had not been aware of the need for a specialist toilet. However, it reiterated its stance that the resident would remain in the property, stating ‘we are aware that you are working with the contractors to ensure the works can be safely carried out in stages with you remaining in your property’. The landlord again failed to explain why it had changed its decision on the provision of temporary accommodation and again failed to demonstrate how it had considered the resident’s specific health concerns – this was unreasonable.
As part of this review in April-May 2020, the landlord explained to the resident that it had not been aware the specialist toilet had been installed in 2016 by its aids and adaptations department and implied that this led to the inappropriate accommodation offer. However, there is a record on the August 2019 decant checklist that the matter of the specialist toilet had been discussed with the resident at the time of its assessment. The landlord’s actions were therefore unreasonable as its explanation contained inaccurate information.
The potential of a temporary accommodation move was again noted in September 2020 when the landlord indicated it was still considering options for a move and it has advised this Service that this remains a possibility. It is of concern that there is still a lack of clarity for the resident as to whether the landlord has decided that a decant is required or not. This lack of clarity may again lead to the resident being given conflicting advice about whether he will be moved before major works commence or not – this is unreasonable.
The impact of this service failure has been mitigated by the delay in major works being carried out (that delay has not been investigated by this Service because it appears to be linked to the disrepair and insurance claims and the landlord has not considered it through its complaints process). This means that the resident has not been as adversely affected by the temporary accommodation service failure as he may otherwise have been. Nevertheless, the landlord’s approach has been inconsistent and will inevitably have caused uncertainty to the resident from July 2019 to date. The landlord has offered compensation of £25 in recognition of the failures it identified though the complaints process but this is not sufficient redress given the circumstances of the case.

Deep Clean Offer

The landlord initially made an offer to deep clean the resident’s property in December 2019. This was due to feedback from its contractor on potential Health & Safety concerns in carrying out internal works and the landlord advised the resident that ‘we would like to offer a deep clean to your home to ensure that further in-flat works can be undertaken and completed with ease to a high standard.’ This was a reasonable offer for the landlord to make and demonstrated that it was willing to explore alternative means of resolving the resident’s repairs complaint. It recognised that it needed to take action to allow its contractors to proceed with internal works and made an offer to the resident accordingly.
The resident subsequently complained that the landlord had not provided him with enough details about the deep clean offer. The landlord reviewed this and apologised to the resident in March 2020, advising that an assessment would be required but that the clean was likely to ‘include washing the floor surfaces, kitchen surfaces, as well as the bathroom and toilet.’ It was reasonable for the landlord to make efforts to answer the resident’s questions while also explaining that an assessment of the requirements was needed for exact details to be provided.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure by the landlord in its handling of:

the residents reports of outstanding repairs and

the temporary accommodation offer it made to the resident.

In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the offer it made to carry out a deep clean to the resident’s property.

Reasons

The landlord decided in June 2019 to carry out some repairs separate to the resident’s disrepair claim but contributed to delays in these being completed and did not communicate clearly with its contractor or the resident.
The landlord was inconsistent in its communication with the resident about its temporary accommodation offer and was heavy-handed in its approach despite being aware of the resident’s health concerns.
The landlord made an appropriate offer to carry out a deep clean of the resident’s property following feedback from its repairs contractor. It provided as much information about this deep clean as was reasonably possible and has proposed an assessment visit to allow it to provide more details.

Orders

The landlord to pay compensation of £400 to the resident within 4 weeks of the date of this report, made up of:

£200 in recognition of the landlord’s service failures in managing repairs (that were separate to the resident’s disrepair claim) and the impact of these on the resident and
£200 in recognition of the landlord’s service failure in its management of the temporary accommodation offer and the impact of this on the resident.

The landlord to contact the resident within 4 weeks of the date of this report to update him on the likely start date of major works and discuss potential re-housing options with him.

The landlord to write to the resident within 4 weeks of the date of this report (and provide a copy to this Service) to:
1. Apologise for the service failures identified in this report
2. Advise when it will be completing all of the works the resident listed on 4 June 2019, including the garden clearance; if it is not intending to carry out a repair, it should explain why and refer to the appropriate policy when doing so
3. Advise how he should report any new repairs issues that arise while the disrepair claim is ongoing

Recommendations

The landlord to write to the resident (or his solicitor if appropriate) within 4 weeks of the date of this report to advise whether the removal of the radiator and the replacement of the damaged carpet are being dealt with as part of the disrepair claim; if not, it should explain why and signpost the resident appropriately as to how these issues can be progressed.