Winchester City Council (202114423)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202114423

Winchester City Council

27 June 2023

 

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:
    1. Concerns about the condition of the property when she moved in and the landlord’s response to reported repairs.
    2. damaged cooker.
    3. associated complaint.

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.
  2. Paragraph 42(a) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme states the Ombudsman may not consider a complaint which is made prior to having exhausted a landlord’s complaints procedure, unless there is evidence of a complaint-handling failure, and the Ombudsman is satisfied that the member has not taken action within a reasonable timescale.
  3. The resident son has stated that the landlord damaged the resident’s cooker due to a fault with the landlord’s electrical wiring. The landlord has confirmed that it has not provided the resident’s son with a stage one or two complaint response in relation to the cooker.
  4. After carefully considering all the evidence, in accordance with paragraph 42(a) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the resident’s complaint about the damaged electric cooker is outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. This is because the complaint regarding the damaged cooker has not exhausted the landlord’s complaints procedure. The resident may be able to refer the complaint about the cooker to the Ombudsman if she remains dissatisfied once the complaint has exhausted the landlord’s internal complaints process.

Background

  1. The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord. The resident’s son is representing her in this complaint. The resident’s son has described the resident as “clinically vulnerable”. The landlord’s records state that the resident has long standing scoliosis, vertebral compression and her mobility is severely restricted.
  2. On 22 October 2020, the resident and her son moved to the property. The resident’s son stated there were issues with the condition of the property when they moved in.
  3. On 18 June 2021, the resident submitted a complaint to the landlord regarding the issues with the property. The resident’s son explained that the back bedroom required plastering. He also stated that the property had no heating or hot water between 22 October 2020 and 13 November 2020 and no temporary heating was offered by the landlord. The resident’s son also stated that the landlord’s contractor left the carpet gripper rail uncovered and as a result, the resident stepped on it and injured her foot. Additionally, he reported that the bathroom radiator was leaking and there was rubbish left in the attic.
  4. On 19 July 2021, the landlord provided its stage one complaint response. It explained that it removed the wallpaper from the walls, as the wallpaper was in poor condition. The landlord also apologised for the delay in repairing the heating system and for the foot injury the resident experienced. It also acknowledged that it carried out an asbestos test but failed to inform the resident or resident’s son of the results. Finally, the landlord also stated it removed the items located in the resident’s attic as soon as it realised they were there.
  5. On 19 November 2021, the landlord provided its stage two complaint response. It stated that it visited the resident’s property with its surveyor and a local councillor on 11 November 2021. The landlord stated that it agreed to undertake redecoration of the bedrooms due to the delay in informing the resident about the asbestos test results. It also apologised for the delay and inconvenience of the outstanding issues.
  6. The resident’s son also raised a separate issue with the cooker in the property. The landlord has stated that its insurer dealt with a claim for the cooker and a claim of £400 was settled.
  7. In the landlord’s file submission sent to the Ombudsman. The landlord stated that it decorated both bedrooms on 26 January 2022. It also replaced the extractor fan in the bathroom on 6 May 2022. The landlord also offered to replace the bathroom door, and this was scheduled to be completed on 27 July 2022. Both the landlord and resident have confirmed that the bathroom door has not yet been replaced.
  8. The resident’s son remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s response and submitted the complaint to the Ombudsman. The resident’s desired outcome is to receive compensation for the distress and inconvenience caused.

Assessment and findings

The condition of the resident’s property when she moved in and the landlord’s response to reported repairs.

  1. The landlord’s void-reservicing of dwellings policy provides information about the minimum standard a property should comply with. The policy states that the property will have adequate heating and hot water and the property, including the roof space, will be clear of rubbish. The policy also states that all poorly adhering, loose, or crumbling plaster will be removed and replaced with new plaster. Furthermore, the policy states that bathroom and toilet doors will be fitted with a privacy latch set that will be openable from the outside.
  2. The landlord’s tenant handbook also provides information about repair timescales. The handbook states that the landlord will respond to a containable leak within five working days. It also states it would respond to repair a total failure of central heating between 1 May and 31 October within three working days. In addition, the tenant handbook also explains that the landlord employs consultants to carry out asbestos tests at its request and these tests usually take place on void (empty) properties.
  3. The landlord explained in its stage one response that a surveyor had inspected the bedroom wall and it was identified as being in a reasonable condition. As the wall was identified in reasonable condition by the surveyor with no evidence of the plaster crumbling, the landlord complied with its void re-serving policy in this case and it would not be expected to replaster the resident’s bedroom wall. The landlord was entitled to rely on the surveyor’s expert opinion and the Ombudsman has seen no evidence to contradict this opinion. In addition, the Ombudsman recognises that the landlord’s response was reasonable in relation to the back bedroom wall. It is acknowledged that the landlord offered to use another surveyor to inspect the wall, which it did not have to do but was a reasonable suggestion to offer the resident the reassurance of a second opinion.
  4. The Ombudsman recognises that the landlord leaving items/rubbish in the attic did not comply with its void re-servicing policy. However, the landlord acknowledged the mistake in its stage one complaint response, and it removed the rubbish from the attic on 15 February 2021. Therefore, the rubbish was removed within a reasonable length of time.
  5. The resident’s son raised concerns about possible asbestos in the property when they moved in. The landlord agreed to carry out an asbestos test which complies with its tenant handbook. The asbestos certificate provided by the landlord is dated 18 May 2021. Therefore, it is evident that there was a delay in carrying out the asbestos test and a further delay in the communicating the negative asbestos results to the resident and the resident’s son. The resident’s son has said he had to sleep on the sofa due to the possible asbestos in the bedroom. The Ombudsman recognises that it must have been difficult for the resident’s son to have to sleep on the sofa for a significant length of time. However, the landlord acted reasonably by apologising for the delay and error in its stage one complaint response. The landlord also offered in its stage two complaint response to redecorate the bedrooms within the property to compensate for the delay communicating the asbestos test results. The decoration of the resident’s bedrooms was completed on 26 January 2022.  The offer to decorate the bedrooms proportionately reflects the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident and the resident’s son by the delayed asbestos test results.
  6. The landlord stated in its stage two complaint response that it had raised orders for the additional small works which were identified, following an inspection of the resident’s property. The works included replacing the privacy latch on the bathroom door. The Ombudsman recognises that that the privacy latch on the resident’s property should have been replaced prior to the resident moving into the property, which would have been in with the landlord’s void re-servicing policy. However, the landlord agreed to replace the bathroom door instead of just replacing the privacy latch, which it was not strictly required to do. The resident’s son has informed the Ombudsman that the bathroom door has not been replaced. It is recognised that there has been delay by the landlord in replacing the bathroom door. However, as the landlord has offered to replace the entire door instead of just adding a privacy latch, the Ombudsman does not think it is appropriate for the landlord to pay compensation to the resident for delay in replacing the door. The Ombudsman would expect the landlord to arrange with the resident’s son a suitable date and time to complete the bathroom door replacement as soon as possible.
  7. When the resident and her son moved into the property there were issues with the boiler. In addition, there was a leak from the radiator pipes due to a radiator being removed for decoration purposes. The leak was containable and resolved in November 2020. However, the boiler not working resulted in the resident not having any heating or hot water for approximately three weeks. Considering the resident’s medical circumstances, the Ombudsman recognises it must have been particularly difficult and distressing for the resident not having access to heating or hot water. The landlord apologised in its stage one complaint response for the delays in repairing the heating system and for not providing the resident with a temporary heater. It also acknowledged that its contractor initially ordered the incorrect part for the boiler.
  8. The Ombudsman would have expected the landlord to repair the heating system as quickly as possible and in line with its repair timescales of three working days, which is referenced in the landlord’s tenant handbook. The Ombudsman would also have expected the landlord to have provided the resident with temporary heaters when the boiler was not working but it failed to do this. As a result of no temporary heaters being provided to the resident, the resident’s son purchased a gas cabinet heater for £104.
  9. The delay in repairing the boiler would have caused significant distress and inconvenience to the resident. There has been maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the condition of the resident’s property when she moved in and its response to reported repairs. Therefore, it would be appropriate for the landlord to reimburse the £104 the resident’s son paid for the heater and pay the resident compensation of £270 for the distress and inconvenience caused.
  10. The amount of compensation awarded is compliant with the landlord’s draft compensation policy. The amount awarded is also in line with the Ombudsman’s Remedies Guidance (published on our website), which sets out the Ombudsman’s approach to compensation. The Remedies Guidance suggests awards of £100 to £600 where there has been a failure which adversely affected the resident but there was no permanent impact. As above, the resident would have experienced distress and inconvenience but there was no permanent impact in this case because the boiler was eventually repaired.

Complaint handling

  1. The landlord has not provided the Ombudsman with a copy of its complaints policy. Therefore, the ombudsman has assessed the landlord’s complaint handling against our service’s Complaint Handling Code (The Code). The Code sets out the Ombudsman’s expectations for landlords’ complaint handling practices. The Code states that landlords should operate a two stage complaints process. A stage one response should be provided within ten working days of the complaint and a stage two response should be provided within 20 working days.
  2. The resident’s son first submitted the resident’s complaint to the landlord on      18 June 2021. Following this, the landlord provided its stage one response on     19 July 2021. This response was approximately 21 working days after the resident emailed his complaint to the landlord. The response time was late and not compliant with the timescales referenced in the Code.
  3. It took around three months for the landlord to provide its stage two complaint response. The resident’s son requested the complaint to be escalated to the next stage on 9 August 2021. However, a stage two complaint response was not provided until 19 November 2021. The delay would have caused inconvenience for the resident and her son, as they were delayed in progressing the complaint to the Ombudsman because they needed to wait for the landlord’s final response before contacting our Service.
  4. The landlord also failed to signpost and provide the resident’s son with information on how to make a personal injury claim in its stage one complaint response, when it responded to the complaint point about the resident’s foot injury. The Ombudsman would have expected the landlord to either investigate the personal injury claim itself or provide the resident’s son with details of how the resident could pursue a personal injury claim to its liability insurer. It is outside the Ombudsman’s remit to determine whether the resident was injured due to negligence by the landlord’s contractors as this would be a matter of legal liability which would be better suited to a court or insurer to decide. However, the landlord’s failure to investigate the resident’s concerns was a failure in its service which would have caused distress and inconvenience to the resident.
  5. Given there was a delay in the landlord providing its stage one and stage two complaint response and it failed to provide the resident with information on how to make a personal injury claim. It would be appropriate for the landlord to pay the resident £200 compensation for the distress and inconvenience caused. The amount of compensation is appropriate to recognise the inconvenience the resident experienced. It is also compliant with the Remedies Guidance referenced above.

Determination (decision)

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the condition of the resident’s property when she moved in and its response to the reported repairs.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 42A of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the complaint relating to the electric cooker is outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.
  3. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Orders

  1. The landlord to pay the resident £270 compensation for its handling of the condition of the resident’s property when she moved in and its response to the reported repairs.
  2. The landlord to pay the resident £100 compensation for its complaint handling.
  3. The landlord to reimburse the resident £104 for the gas cabinet heater, which was purchased when the boiler was broken.
  4. These payments should be made within four weeks of the date of this report.
  5. Within four weeks of the date of this report, the landlord should give the resident’s details of its liability insurer (if it has one) so that she can make a claim if she wishes to for the injury caused by the carpet gripper.
  6. The landlord to replace the resident’s bathroom door which it previously agreed to. The landlord shall contact this Service within six weeks of this determination to confirm that it has complied with the above order.

Recommendations

  1. It is recommended that the landlord considers creating a separate repairs policy.
  2. It is recommended that the landlord creates a complaints policy if it doesn’t already have one in place.