Wiltshire Council (202346931)
REPORT
COMPLAINT 202346931
Wiltshire Council
17 January 2025
Our approach
The Housing Ombudsman’s approach to investigating and determining complaints is to decide what is fair in all the circumstances of the case. This is set out in the Housing Act 1996 and the Housing Ombudsman Scheme (the Scheme). The Ombudsman considers the evidence and looks to see if there has been any ‘maladministration’, for example whether the landlord has failed to keep to the law, followed proper procedure, followed good practice or behaved in a reasonable and competent manner.
Both the resident and the landlord have submitted information to the Ombudsman, and this has been carefully considered. Their accounts of what has happened are summarised below. This report is not an exhaustive description of all the events that have occurred in relation to this case, but an outline of the key issues as a background to the investigation’s findings.
The complaint
- The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of:
- The resident’s reports of required repairs, roof repair, and planned roof replacement.
- Request for a kitchen upgrade.
- The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.
Background
- The resident has held a secure tenancy since 2017. The property is a 2- bedroom bungalow, where the resident lives with her partner. There are vulnerabilities within the household which the landlord was aware of. The resident is in kidney failure and has cancer.
- The resident emailed the landlord and reported damp in her airing cupboard due to water coming through her roof on 28 September 2023. She also informed the landlord her wet room was leaking and making the walls in the hallway and her bedroom damp. She said she was unable to get her dialysis machine fitted at the property because of these issues.
- The landlord inspected the property on 30 October 2023. The inspection report said the old flue had not been removed when the new boiler had been installed. The felt around the flue had worn away and the new felt had been cut poorly leaving a large gap which allowed water to enter the roof space. The wet room issue was caused by the floor corner joint and missing tile grout which was letting in moisture. The landlord raised jobs to fix these issues.
- On 7 November 2023 the landlord told the resident, the repairs in the wet room would take place the following week. That it needed to have the airing cupboard checked by a contractor. The landlord arranged the repair for 13 November 2023, but the resident was not available due to personal circumstances.
- Between 15 and 17 November 2023 the resident contacted the landlord about the leak from her roof. The resident told the landlord that the second bedroom was not suitable for her to use due to her vulnerabilities. She and the landlord discussed a temporary move (decant). The landlord told her it would email the contractor for an update.
- The landlord arranged for a contractor to attend to discuss outstanding repairs for the resident on 21 November 2023. The contractor did not attend until the 22 November 2023, they apologised for the missed appointment. The landlord raised repairs to the wet room and the bedroom wall. In the landlord’s records the roof repair had been completed.
- On 8 December 2023 the resident chased the landlord about the outstanding repairs. It told her the bathroom repairs would commence the following week.
- On 13 December 2023 the resident asked for a decant due to her health conditions. The next day the landlord offered the resident temporary accommodation but said it was having difficulty providing accommodation which would accommodate her dog. The decant did not take place.
- On 9 January 2024 the resident requested a rent rebate from the landlord for its inaction in resolving the leak during the period between August and December 2023.
- On 24 January 2024 the landlord’s survey report mentioned the resident had vulnerabilities including skin allergies, breathing problems and allergies to dust. The landlord informed the resident, in a letter, that the roof would need to be replaced.
- The resident complained to the landlord at some point between 25 and 31 January 2024. She said no one had attended her property to carry out repairs between November and December 2023 and that she was seeking a rent rebate for 2 months.
- On 31 January 2024 the landlord visited the resident and raised a repair to replace her existing air system in the kitchen. It updated her and chased the repairs works for the hallway.
- On 1 February 2024 the resident requested the landlord compensate her for the 3 months taken to complete the repairs and said that there had been non-attendance of appointments.
- The landlord sent a stage 1 response to the resident on 7 February 2024. It said:
- It did not uphold the resident’s complaint.
- It had opened a damp and mould case.
- It undertook repairs to the roof and the wet room in the property within a reasonable timeframe.
- It acknowledged that the contractor attended the wrong property, but it remedied this shortly afterwards.
- It disagreed that the resident should receive a 2-month rent rebate.
- In February 2024 the resident said she disagreed with the landlord’s stage 1 response and requested a rent rebate. The landlord told the resident the roof had been repaired in November 2023 and would now be fully replaced in line with the roof replacement programme. This would occur over a 3-day period between 22 February and 24 February 2024.
- On 20 February 2024 the resident escalated her complaint to stage 2. The resident said:
- The landlord did not undertake repair work promptly between September and December 2023 for the damp in her property.
- The wet room leaked through the floor into the bedroom, and this prevented her from having her dialysis machine there.
- The contractor missed appointments.
- She was seeking a rent rebate for the inconvenience caused.
- She was disappointed the landlord would not upgrade her kitchen.
- The landlord issued a stage 2 response to the resident on 14 March 2024. It said:
- It confirmed that the air system upgrade in the kitchen was completed.
- The water damage in the hallway was rectified.
- The roof replacement would start on 18 March 2024.
- A kitchen upgrade was not scheduled until 2032.
- It acknowledged the resident’s health issues.
- The decant was discussed but the resident refused because of her dog.
- It declined the resident’s request for a rent rebate.
- On 15 March 2024 scaffolding was erected, and roof works started on 18 March 2024 and was completed on 22 March 2024. The survey of the roof was completed on 2 April 2024.
- The resident escalated her complaint to this Service as she remained dissatisfied that she had not received a rent rebate from the landlord. She is seeking 2 months rent rebate for distress and inconvenience. The resident says the water is still leaking in the wet room. She is unhappy that the landlord had not upgraded her kitchen. She explained that the air system in her kitchen was never fitted.
Assessment and findings
Scope of the complaint
- The resident has said she considers the issues affecting her property have impacted her health. It is beyond the expertise of this Service to make a determination on whether there was a direct link between the repairs and damp within the property and the resident’s health. The resident therefore may wish to seek independent advice on making a personal injury claim if she considers that her health has been affected by any action or lack thereof by the landlord. Whilst we cannot consider the direct effect on health, consideration has been given to any general distress and inconvenience which the resident experienced as a result of any service failures by the landlord.
- The resident told this Service about further issues she has had with the wet room leak which had damaged her carpet. The resident had an occupational therapist visit to consider whether she required an adapted kitchen on 19 April 2024. These further issues arose after the landlord had provided its final response. In the interest of fairness, the scope of this investigation is limited to the issues raised during the resident’s formal complaint. The landlord needs to be given a fair opportunity to investigate and respond to any issues prior to our involvement. The resident can bring her complaint to this Service if she remains unhappy once the issues have completed the landlord’s complaint process.
Required repairs and planned roof replacement
Roof Leak
- The landlord’s repairs policy, says the landlord is responsible for the roof structure and coverings and it will take action within 5 working days. The resident first reported to the landlord that water was coming through her roof and soaking her airing cupboard on 28 September 2023.
- The landlord does not have a vulnerable persons or decant policy. The landlord’s repair policy says when dealing with vulnerable customers that staff should exercise discretion to go outside the standard schedule. It must balance the wants and needs of the tenants, their vulnerabilities, and value for money.
- The landlord inspected the property on 30 October 2023. It was inappropriate that it took 23 working days to attend the property, since the resident first reported the issue. This was outside the landlord’s timeframe of 5 working days. The landlord has not provided an explanation for the delay. The inspection report found the felt needed to be replaced as there was a large gap allowing water to enter the roof space. On 13 November 2023 the landlord discussed a temporary move into her second bedroom but the room was unsuitable due to her medical conditions. It was reasonable for the landlord to discuss or suggest changing bedrooms while works are undertaken.
- Between 15 and 17 November 2023 the resident had to chase the landlord about the outcome of the inspection of the leak from her roof and when the repairs would start. It was unreasonable for the landlord not to keep the resident updated. On 17 November 2023 in its telephone logs the landlord told the resident it would request an update from the contractor. On the same call the resident told the landlord that no temporary repairs had been made. It was unreasonable that the landlord did not consider any temporary measures to prevent water ingress into the property. The landlord did not handle the works urgently and not in line with its repairs policy within the 5 working days.
- The resident raised concerns about her vulnerabilities/medical conditions affecting her staying in the property. It was reasonable for the landlord to discuss a temporary move within 2 days of her raising her concerns. The landlord’s records are unclear what decision was made about the temporary move. There is no evidence that the landlord understood or explored a risk assessment to understand the impact of the resident remaining in her property. It did not provide the resident with an explanation as to why a temporary move was not suitable. The landlord did not do enough knowing what it did about her vulnerabilities/medical conditions which was inappropriate.
- The landlord appropriately apologised to the resident for its contractor missed appointment to discuss outstanding repair to the roof on 21 November 2023. It attended the next day which was reasonable.
- On 24 November 2023 the landlord’s records show the roof repair was completed. The landlord did not consider any temporary measures to stop the water ingress during this time or take her health needs into consideration and explore any alternative options. It took 44 working days from the date the resident’s first report to complete the repair which is outside its timescales. It has not explained the reason for the delay and there is limited evidence that the landlord kept the resident updated. This was a failing by the landlord.
Replacement of the roof
- The landlord’s repairs policy does not give a timescale for planned works. The landlord’s compensation policy says when the resident remains in the home and some rooms cannot be reasonably used, it will not offer compensation, as the major repairs would have been discussed and facilitated in a planned way for the resident to make their own arrangements to leave the property.
- The resident was informed about the roof replacement and this prompted her to speak to the landlord about a decant. The resident wanted to be decanted due to the impact that works would have on her medical conditions on 13 December 2023. The next day the landlord offered the resident accommodation, but it explained it would have difficulty in providing accommodation which included her dog. However, there is a dispute between the resident and the landlord about the decant. The resident said the landlord would not accommodate her dog. In its stage 2 response the landlord said it offered a hotel, but the resident did not take up this opportunity because of her dog.
- The landlord did not take appropriate action to explore all options of alternative accommodation with the resident especially with her vulnerabilities. The landlord’s approach was limited and it has not supplied any decant policy. The evidence does not show if the landlord considered or discussed with the resident alternatives to its offer of an unsuitable accommodation. It was understandable that the resident had concerns about her dog during the period she would need to be away from the property. While the landlord may have found it challenging to find accommodation that would take her dog, it did not support the resident during this period and placed the onus onto her to find a suitable alternative.
- On 15 January the resident asked the landlord when her roof would be replaced. It is unclear whether it updated the resident.
- The landlord undertook a pre-survey report on 24 January 2024 which identified the resident’s vulnerabilities which included skin allergies, breathing problems, and allergies to dust and that the scaffolding would affect her access to her dialysis machine. There is no evidence that it assessed the works needed and how it could have assisted the resident if it was not doing to decant her. It does not appear that the landlord took the resident’s vulnerabilities into consideration when undertaking roof replacement.
- Following the pre-survey, it informed the resident by letter on the same day that it would be replacing her roof. It was appropriate for the landlord to keep the resident notified. It responded to the resident that it was waiting for a quote and a roof contractor. On 31 January 2024 the resident chased the landlord again for updates. The landlord records show it chased its roof contractors on 4 February 2024 for the start date of the roof works.
- In February 2024 the resident chased the landlord for updates about the roof. The landlord responded telling the resident it had not got dates for the roofing replacement programme. The resident escalated her complaint on 20 February 2024 as she was unaware of the date for the roof replacement and had previously been told it would happen before March.
- On 27 February 2024 the landlord sent a further letter which explained the roof replacement would start on the second week of March. The resident contacted the landlord on 13 March 2024 to inform it that the scaffolding team had arrived at her property. She queried the start date of the works with the landlord. In its stage 2 response it confirmed that replacement roof programme works would start on 18 March 2024.
- Between 8 to 13 March 2024 the landlord chased for a roof start date with its roof contractors.
- On 15 March 2024 the scaffolding was erected, the roof replacement started on 18 March 2024, and was completed on 22 March 2024. The post-survey was completed on 2 April 2024.
- There is no timeframe of when planned works should be completed. The landlord took 59 working days from the letter it sent out explaining it would replace the roof. The landlord completed the repair within a reasonable amount time as the replacement was part of a roof programme. The landlord did provide the resident with some updates, but was not always proactive which led the resident to contact it. The landlord did not handle the resident’s concerns about living in the property appropriately while works took place.
Wet room leak and damage to hallway
- The landlord’s repair’s policy does not mention leaks in wet rooms or repairs caused by water damage. The policy for general leaks says it will take action within 5 working days.The policy says, “staff will need to consider whether they should exercise discretion to go outside the standard schedule when there may be issues relating to vulnerabilities”.
- On 28 September 2023the resident informed the landlord her wet room was leaking and making the walls in the hallway damp. There was also a leak from her roof. She was unable to get her dialysis machine fitted at the property because of a combination of both leaks.
- In October 2023 the resident sent the landlord pictures of the damage to the hallway. It was unreasonable for the landlord to take a month to inspect the property on 30 October 2023 especially as it was aware of the resident’s vulnerabilities. It did not take action within the 5 working days in its policy. The outcome of the inspection was that the wet room leak was caused by the floor corner joint and missing tile grout which was letting in moisture. The landlord raised a repair for the wet room floor to be resealed around the corners and the wall tiles to be regrouted.
- It was appropriate the landlord updated the resident on 7 November 2023 that the repairs to the flooring and grouting in the wet room would occur the following week. The landlord arranged the repair for 13 November 2023, but the resident was not available due to personal circumstances, so it cancelled the appointment. On 15 November 2023 the resident told the landlord no contractor attended on 13 November 2023. There appears to be a dispute about the missed appointment on 13 November 2023. The landlord arranged for its contractor to attend on the 21 November 2023 to discuss outstanding repairs. This appointment took place on the 22 November and following this the landlord raised repairs to the wet room and the bedroom wall.
- The resident had to chase the landlord for an update on 8 December 2023, it responded and told her the wet room repairs would commence the following week. The landlord was not customer focused in keeping the resident updated about the repairs and when works would take place. There are no records to say when the wet room repairs were completed.
- The resident chased the landlord on 31 January 2024 about the repair works in the hallway and escalated this by email on 20 February 2024. The landlord communication with the resident was not proactive in keeping her updated with the repairs which was unreasonable.
- In its stage 1 response on 7 February 2024 the landlord said it had refurbished the resident’s wet room. In its stage 2 response on 15 March 2024, it confirmed that the wet room repair was completed in December 2023. Also in its response, it said the water damage in the hallway had been rectified. There is no evidence in the landlord’s records that the works were carried out and completed. It failed to recognise the delays and its poor communication with the resident and her vulnerabilities.
- It took over 56 working days to rectify the wet room leak and it took over 100 days to fix the water damage in the hallway from when the resident first reported the issue. It was appropriate for the landlord to repair the wet room first. However, both repairs were not completed within the landlord’s timeframes for completing repairs. There was no explanation by the landlord for the delays. This was a failing by the landlord.
- On 23 October 2024 the resident told this Service that the wet room was still leaking. It is unclear if this had been reported to the landlord and if this is a new leak or connected to the previous leak. A recommendation has been made in respect to this.
- Kitchen Air system
- The landlord’s repairs policy says it will take action on repairs within 20 working days.
- On the 31 January 2024 the resident had a home visit by the landlord and she requested the air system in the kitchen be replaced as it was not working. The repairs records show this was completed on 9 February 2024. On 20 February 2024 the resident raised concerns about the air system upgrade not having been completed. In the stage 2 response on 14 March 2024, the landlord said that the air system update in the kitchen was completed. The landlord acted reasonably in upgrading the air system in the kitchen and had completed the repair within the policy timeframe. There is no evidence that the resident raised this issue again to the landlord.
- Since the final response, the resident has raised to this Service on 23 October 2024 that she disputes the air system in her kitchen was replaced. A recommendation has been made for the landlord to meet with the resident to explore this issue further.
Summary
- The landlord’s compensation policy says it can award discretionary compensation up to £250 to cover time, trouble and inconvenience of bringing a complaint. If the resident is in arrears, it will be offset against any outstanding arrears.
- In the landlord’s repair logs, its response to the replacement of the roof and the air system was within a reasonable timeframe.
- In its stage 1 response the landlord incorrectly informed the resident that it had opened a damp and mould case. It told this Service it had not opened the case due to the source of damp occurring as a result of leaks and there was no presence of mould. It was reasonable for the landlord to deal with the case as a repair. However, it was unreasonable that it did not communicate this to the resident.
- In the phone call with the resident with this Service on 23 October 2024 she said the landlord missed 6 appointments. The resident had made the landlord aware of this in her complaint. We can only see records of 1 missed appointment. There is no record of the landlord’s other missed appointments provided by either party so this Service cannot comment further. The landlord investigated and apologised for the missed appointment as part of its complaint process which was reasonable.
- Some of the events surrounding the repairs are disputed and the lack of clear records has meant that this Service has been unable to draw conclusions. The landlord’s communication with the resident about the repairs was not consistent and it failed to manage her expectations. There have been instances where its communication had caused the resident dissatisfaction with the landlord. The resident experienced delays and repeatedly had to chase progress on her repairs. It frequently failed to keep the resident informed about the repairs. She understandably believed that the landlord was not taking the appropriate action to resolve the repairs. Again, this will have increased her sense of distress. The landlord’s communication with the resident was unreasonable.
- The matter became protracted and caused inconvenience time and trouble for the resident. The landlord did not meet its timeframes for all the repairs. Failing to make the repairs in a timely manner meant delays in resolving the issues which likely prolonged the resident’s sense of distress.
- Between November 2023 to 14 March 2024 the resident requested 7 times for a rent rebate (£1000) for 2 months between November and December 2023. In the stage 1 response the landlord considered it was not necessary to give the resident the rent rebate she requested, and it did not revisit the request for a rent rebate in its stage 2 response. The landlord is entitled to refuse a rent rebate, but it would be appropriate to explain its reasons why to the resident.
- Overall, the landlord has not attempted to put things right with no offer of redress in its stage 1 and stage 2 response for the delays. The landlord did not awarded the resident any compensation. The landlord’s response did not recognise the time it took to respond to the resident on several occasions.
- The landlord’s own compensation policy says it can award compensation for time, trouble and inconvenience. Using the landlord’s compensation policy a payment of £500 is appropriate in recognition of the impact on the resident. The breakdown of £500 is £250 for the wet room and hallway repair and £250 for the roof repair. This is in line with this Service’s guidance on remedies where there have been a failing that have had a significant but not a permanent impact. Therefore, the Ombudsman considers a payment for the delays and the distress, frustration and inconvenience caused to the resident is reasonable.
- The landlord did not explore all options available to decant the resident especially when she had health conditions affected by the works being undertaken. An order has been made for reasonable costs and reimbursements incurred during the period of works when she was unable to reside at the property. The Ombudsman has made a finding of maladministration for its handling of the repairs,.
Kitchen upgrade
- The Decent Home Standards says “the lifetime for a kitchen in bungalows are 30 years”. The landlord has used this as its reference for renewals of kitchens.
- On 7 June 2023 the resident called the landlord asking for someone to review her existing kitchen. The resident was seeking her kitchen to be renewed and updated due to her vulnerabilities. The resident explain there was a cupboard above her sink which made it difficult for her to do the washing up. The resident was told to speak to the council’s adult care department to discuss an inspection. This department is responsible for any care needs and adaption recommendations within properties. The landlord was reasonable in signposting the resident to the relevant department.
- On 20 February 2024 the resident requested a kitchen upgrade. She raised concerns about the age of the kitchen. That the tiles were all old fashioned, she did not have much storage, and the setup was wrong as it was difficult to do the washing up with a cabinet in front of her head.
- In the landlord’s stage 2 response on 14 March 2024, it explained that the kitchen upgrade was under planned works and not scheduled for 30 years (2032). The landlord has reasonably followed the guidance in regarding to the kitchen upgrade. The Ombudsman has found no maladministration regarding the landlord not undertaking a kitchen upgrade.
Complaint handling
- The landlord’s complaints policy defines a complaint as an expression of dissatisfaction, however made, about the standard of service, actions, or lack of action by the organisation, its own staff, or those acting on its behalf, affecting an individual resident or group of residents. When one is received, it will look to resolve the matter locally. If the approach has not reached the desired outcome, a complaint can be raised by contacting the local team or registering a formal complaint.
- In its stage 2 response the landlord refers to the Local Government Social Care Ombudsman injustice test which was not reasonable or relevant to the issues the resident raised to it. it was excessive in length, totalling 14 pages which makes it unclear. It unnecessarily provided the full copy of all the emails from the resident and the stage 1 response which added to the confusion for the resident. It could have summarised them and confirmed with her before it issued its understanding was correct.
- The tone of its complaint response was inappropriate and dismissive of the resident’s complaint and the impact it had on her. An example of this was “I note that the bathroom that you now have is high quality; it was upgraded because of the circumstances that you found yourself in. I consider that we did a great deal to assist you. Having inspected our records, I am satisfied that my officers went beyond what would be expected of them, most likely due to your circumstances.” The bathroom upgrade was unconnected with the current repairs raised. It was an unfair explanation and not considerate of the residents current situation and any failing that may have occurred. This is not what we would expect in a response from a landlord because it is not in line with the complaint handling code. The code says the landlord should take collective responsibility for any shortfalls identified through complaints, rather than blaming others.
- There were significant failings by the landlord in making the complaints process difficult for the resident by the response being excessive in length. The resident wanted to discuss her complaint with the landlord but it did not take the time to speak to her to fully understand her complaint.
- Since it failed to fulfil an important commitment by addressing the resident’s complaint accordingly and offering appropriate financial redress. To avoid similar issues, the landlord should routinely consider its own complaint handling during every investigation. It should consider how it writes its complaint responses.
- The landlord has acknowledged to this Service on 11 October 2024 that in early 2024 its response and complaint handling fell short of its expectations. That it needed robust action and a changed approach to ensure full compliance with the complaint handling code and requirements of the Social Housing Regulator. It has implemented service changes and improvements since 2024. Although this Service appreciates that the landlord has made changes to its complaints system this does not take into the account the resident’s distress and inconvenience in handling of the resident’s complaint between February and March 2024. We cannot see the landlord has gone back to the resident regarding this issue.
- The evidence shows the landlord’s complaint handling was unfair, inappropriate, and from the landlord’s admission it was contrary to its own procedure. Given the circumstances, the landlord did not provide an apology and acknowledged on what went wrong, when it would have been appropriate to do so. Overall, there was maladministration in respect of the landlord’s complaint handling.
Determination
- In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration by the landlord handling of the required repairs, planned roof replacement.
- In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was no maladministration by the landlord in respect of the kitchen upgrade.
- In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration by the landlord in respect of complaint handling.
Orders
- The Ombudsman orders the landlord, within 4 weeks of the date of this report to:
- To apologise in writing to the resident for failings identified within this report.
- Pay the resident £750 comprising of:
- £250 for the failings in handling of the repairs for the roof
- £250 for the failings in handling of the repairs for the wet room and damage to the hallway
- £250 for the failings in complaint handling.
- It is ordered the landlord discuss with the resident any reasonable reimbursement for any evidenced alternative accommodation she took up while works were undertaken.
- Provide evidence of compliance with the above to this Service.
Recommendations
- It is recommended the landlord discuss with the resident, her concerns that the air system was not fitted in the kitchen
- It is recommended the landlord organise an inspection of the continuing leak in the wet room.