Woking Borough Council (202311042)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202311042

Woking Borough Council

20 December 2024

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:
1. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of leaks causing damp, mould and damage to possessions.
2. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s report of a lack of heating.
3. The landlord’s handling of the associated complaints.

Background

The resident is a secure tenant of the landlord, which is a local authority. The tenancy began on 10 December 1990.
The landlord has advised this Service that it has vulnerabilities recorded on its system for the resident including mental illness. The landlord’s records also show there are alerts against the resident’s property on its repairs system to show the resident has disabilities. Due to the resident’s vulnerabilities, she was represented by her carer during the events covered in this investigation report. For brevity, this report refers in several places to ‘the resident’, even though most of the contact with the landlord was conducted by the resident’s representative on the resident’s behalf.
The property is a 3-bedroom semi-detached house.
During week commencing 26 September 2022, the out of hours team attended the property following the resident’s report of a leak from the loft area. The water was shut off and the landlord’s notes stated that a new ball valve was required. The landlord therefore raised a follow-on order and work was carried out on 4 October 2022.
The landlord raised a repair job on 5 October 2022 for a roofing subcontractor to attend. The job stated that water was coming in through the roof and was affecting the kitchen. The roofing subcontractor attended on 16 November 2022 and reported that it was unable to find any leaks from the roof.
The resident phoned the landlord on 17 October 2022 and explained that there had been a leak in the loft area on the previous day. The landlord’s notes stated that the contractor was on site dealing with the repair. The notes also stated that the landlord had spoken with the contractor and had been told that the leak was caused by an error made by the contractor during a previous repair.
The landlord raised an order on 18 October 2022 regarding a problem with the heating. Appointments were booked for the contractor to attend on 20 and 21 October 2022. However, the landlord’s notes show that it did not keep either of these appointments. The job was rebooked for 27 October 2022 and the job was completed on this date.
The resident wrote to the landlord on 21 October 2022, 7 November and 22 November 2022 to report the following:
1. The contractor had broken appointments to attend on 20 and 21 October 2022 to repair the heating. This caused the resident’s carer to take unnecessary time off work to be at the property because of the resident’s vulnerabilities.
2. The resident had experienced leaks from the loft area, which she said had been due to poor workmanship by the contractor. This had caused damage to her possessions and had affected her mental health.
3. The resident also stated on 22 November 2022 she was unhappy that the landlord had not responded to the previous email complaints dated 21 October 2022 and 7 November 2022.
The landlord’s records show that on 16 November 2022 it repaired the leak to the roof which was affecting the kitchen.
The landlord raised a repair order on 18 December 2022 to repair an “uncontrollable leak” that had occurred on the previous day. The contractor’s out of hours team attended on 18 December 2022. The contractor’s notes stated that it had changed the isolation valve and resealed the compression fittings. The contractor noted that the push fittings used to join the pipes in the loft needed to be changed to compression pipe fittings.
The landlord’s records show that the out of hours team attended to a further leak from the loft area on 27 December 2022. The plumber had to isolate the shower. The contractor attended on 28 December 2022 to complete the repairs.
On 11 January 2023, a solicitor acting on the resident’s behalf sent a letter of claim to the landlord in which the solicitor stated that the property was unfit for human habitation due to damp, mould and damage caused by a leaking pipe in the attic.
The landlord’s records show that it completed repairs to the ceilings and plastering in the property, which had been damaged by the leaks. The records also state that repairs to the ridge tiles and reported gaps in the loft were completed on 2 February 2023.
The landlord sent its stage one reply on 9 February 2023 in which it apologised for the contractor not attending the appointments on 20 and 21 October 2022 to repair the heating. In relation to the leaks, the landlord stated that leaks could occur because of age and changes in temperature.
The resident wrote to the landlord on 15 February 2023 and stated that she was unhappy with the landlord’s stage one reply because there had been 7 leaks and 4 floods from the period September to December 2022, which she said was caused by poor workmanship. She also stated that there had been no heating in the house when the fault with the heating was report in October 2022.
The landlord’s records show that it carried out redecorations to the property on 16 March 2023, including filling, stain-blocking and painting the front bedrooms.
The landlord sent its stage 2 reply on 16 May 2023 in which the landlord stated that its contractor had found no evidence of any negligence causing the leaks. However, it accepted that after carrying out the repairs, the contractor should have run the heating system for at least 30 minutes to check there were no leaks. The landlord said it had asked a different contractor to carry out the follow-up work to the ceilings and walls. It had also asked a different contractor to carry out roofing repairs.
The resident contacted this Service on 27 June 2023 to say she was dissatisfied with the landlord’s stage 2 reply because she had suffered financial loss caused by the flooding. She also stated that she had experienced 2 injuries caused by unsafe conditions.
The resident signed a settlement agreement with the landlord on 28 March 2024 for the landlord to pay her compensation of £2,500.

Assessment and findings

Jurisdiction

What the Ombudsman can and cannot consider is called the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. This is governed by the Scheme. When a complaint is brought to this Service, the Ombudsman must consider all the circumstances of the case, as there are sometimes reasons why a complaint will not be investigated.
Paragraph 42.f. of the Scheme states: “The Ombudsman may not consider complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion…concern matters where the Ombudsman considers it quicker, fairer, more reasonable or more effective to seek a remedy through the courts, other tribunal or procedure”.
In this case, the resident’s solicitor issued a letter of claim to the landlord on 11 January 2023 using the Pre-Action Protocol for Housing Condition Claims. The letter stated that the property was unfit for human habitation due to damp, mould and damage caused by leaks from the attic.
The parties corresponded using the protocol and the works identified in the letter of claim were completed during 2023 and the beginning of 2024. On 28 March 2024, the landlord and the resident (through her solicitor) agreed that the landlord should pay the resident £2,500 “in full and final settlement” of the disrepair matters included in the letter of claim sent in January 2023. This amount was therefore agreed by both parties as a settlement.
The resident’s representative advised this Service on 10 December 2024 that the resident had agreed the settlement because of advice from her solicitor that the landlord “was under a bankruptcy order”. However, the resident’s representative stated that the amount did not cover the costs of the resident’s possessions that were damaged due to the leaks.
The Ombudsman sympathises with the resident’s position given the reported damage to her possessions. However, the view of this Service is that the resident had the opportunity to progress her claim through the pre-action protocol procedure if she was not happy with the landlord’s offer of £2,500.
Given that this matter has already been settled and that the protocol was used, if the resident remains dissatisfied with this aspect of her complaint, the Ombudsman’s view is that it would be fairer and more reasonable for her to seek a further remedy through the courts. Therefore, the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of leaks causing damp, mould and damage to possessions is outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction under paragraph 42.f. of the Scheme.
The Ombudsman has recommended that the landlord sends the resident details of how she can submit a claim to the landlord’s public liability insurer for any damaged possessions should she wish to do so.

Scope of investigation

The resident advised this Service on 27 June 2023 that she had suffered 2 injuries due to falls in the property, which she said were due to unsafe conditions in the property. She also stated that the reported problems in the property had caused her severe mental health issues for which medication had been prescribed.
Whilst this Service is an alternative to the courts, it is unable to establish legal liability or whether a landlord’s actions or lack of action have had a detrimental impact on a resident’s health. Nor can it calculate or award damages. The Ombudsman is therefore unable to consider the personal injury aspects of the resident’s complaint. These matters are more likely to be suitable for consideration by a court or via a personal injury claim.
The resident has provided this Service with information relating to a complaint about a leak on the kitchen radiator in October 2021.However, the Ombudsman has focussed its investigation on the events that occurred from September 2022 because this was the start of the period referred to in the resident’s complaint to this Service on 27 June 2023. It was also the start of the period considered by the landlord in its stage one and two replies dated 9 February 2023 and 16 May 2023 respectively. The Ombudsman has therefore considered it fair and reasonable not to investigate matters that pre-dated September 2022.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s report of a lack of heating

The landlord’s repairs log shows that it raised an order on 18 October 2022 regarding a lack of heating in the property. The description of the job was “heating is only warming on the top not on the bottom”. The resident later clarified to the landlord in her stage 2 complaint that the original fault reported was that there was no heating in the house and the hallway radiator was only warm at the top.
The landlord booked an appointment for an engineer to attend on 20 October 2022. The landlord had therefore arranged for its contractor to attend within a reasonable timescale as it had raised the repair order on 18 October 2022.
The landlord’s repairs log states that the appointment on 20 October 2022 had to be moved as the engineer was engaged on a long job. The notes in the repairs log stated that the resident’s job was therefore moved to 21 October 2022 and the contractor left a voicemail message for the resident to this effect. The landlord later explained in its stage one reply that the engineer had been dealing with a higher priority job and did not have sufficient time to attend the resident’s property.
The Ombudsman understands that sometimes unexpected problems will arise which mean jobs have to be cancelled. In such circumstances, it is important that the resident is notified of the cancellation as soon as possible. In this case, the evidence indicates that the resident was only notified of the cancellation on the day of the appointment on 20 October 2022. Although this did not give the resident’s carer sufficient time to change his work arrangements, the landlord’s notes suggest that the contractor was unable to provide more notice because the problem that led to the cancellation occurred on 20 October 2022.
The appointment was rebooked for the engineer to attend on 21 October 2022. However, the engineer once again did not attend the appointment. The landlord stated in its stage one reply that this was due to sickness absence. The Ombudsman again understands that contractors’ appointments may be affected by unexpected staff absences. However, in this case, there is no indication in the landlord’s repairs log that the resident was notified the job would be cancelled. Furthermore, the resident’s representative has advised this Service that neither he nor the resident were notified of the cancellation.
The contractor’s failure to notify the resident about the job cancellation was unreasonable. It meant that the resident and her representative were still expecting the engineer to attend and had to contact the landlord to find out why the engineer had not attended.
The cancellation of the appointment on 21 October 2022 resulted in the appointment being rebooked to 27 October 2022, and the repair was successfully completed on this date. The cancellation of the appointments therefore meant that the repair had taken 9 days to complete from when the resident first reported the problem on 18 October 2022. The resident’s representative explained in his email of 21 October 2022 that the resident who was disabled was cold due to the lack of heating.
The Ombudsman’s view is that although the appointments were cancelled due to unforeseen events, the landlord should have given greater urgency to carrying out the repair following the cancellation of the job on 21 October 2022. Instead, it took a further 6 days to complete the repair. Furthermore, this Service has not seen any evidence that the landlord offered to provide temporary heating during this period.
In February 2021, the Ombudsman produced a Spotlight report on complaints about heating and hot water, which stated:
1. “Landlords should be particularly aware of the needs of vulnerable residents and respond accordingly”.
2. “Landlords should have access to and offer residents temporary practical help during a period without heating or hot water – such as electric heaters…”
The landlord accepted in its stage one reply dated 9 February 2023 that the contractor’s communication had been poor in relation to the cancellation and rebooking of the appointments. The landlord therefore apologised and said it had spoken to the contractor about improving its communication where appointments have to be rebooked.
The resident’s carer stated that he had taken unnecessary time off work due to the cancelled appointments and therefore had incurred financial losses. As previously stated, the Ombudsman understands that it may be necessary for a landlord to cancel an appointment at short notice. In this case, the reasons for the cancellations given by the landlord were that on 20 October the engineer had been engaged on another job that took a long time to complete and on 21 October the engineer was absent due to sickness.
The Ombudsman accepts that in both cases, it may not have been feasible for the landlord to give advance notice of the cancellations, other than on the day of the appointment. Therefore, the Ombudsman does not consider it reasonable to order the landlord to reimburse the resident’s carer for loss of earnings. However, as the appointment was cancelled twice, the Ombudsman’s view is that it was inappropriate that the landlord did not offer compensation to the resident for the inconvenience caused. The Spotlight report referred to earlier states: “When landlords or contractors do not keep appointments, they should consider providing appropriate compensation”.
The Ombudsman has taken into account that the period of 9 days between the resident reporting the heating issue and the repair being carried out was not excessive. Nevertheless, the Ombudsman has found there was service failure by the landlord in dealing with the resident’s report of a lack of heating because:
1. This Service has not seen any evidence that the landlord was proactive in advising the resident about the cancellation of the appointment on 21 October 2022.
2. This Service has not seen any evidence that the landlord offered the resident temporary heating following the cancelled appointment on 21 October 2022.
3. The landlord did not offer compensation for the missed appointment or the delay in repairing the heating.
The Ombudsman has ordered the landlord to pay the resident £100 compensation, which is within the range of sums shown in the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance for service failures over a short duration, which caused distress, inconvenience, time and trouble, disappointment and delays in getting matters resolved.

The landlord’s handling of the associated complaints

The landlord’s complaints policy in operation at the time of the resident’s complaints stated that the process consisted of 2 stages. The policy stated that it would reply to stage one and two complaints within 20 working days at each stage. The policy added that if the timescales could not be met because the complaint was complex, it would provide the resident with a new timeframe for the response.
The resident contacted the landlord on 7 and 22 November 2022 to chase for a reply to her complaint submitted on 21 October 2022.
The resident advised the landlord that she had submitted a complaint on 21 October 2022 regarding her report about the lack of heating. However, the landlord’s records do not show that this was received and the Ombudsman has not seen a copy of the email that that was sent to the landlord or the email address it was sent to.
The resident then wrote to the landlord on 7 and 22 November 2022 and reiterated that she was complaining about the service received in relation to the reported heating issues in October 2022. The resident referred to the email she had sent on 21 October 2022.
The landlord wrote to the resident on 23 November 2022 and apologised that it had only just seen the resident’s email. The landlord said it would send the resident’s email to its complaints team. The landlord wrote to the resident on 8 December 2022 and on 2 February 2023 to apologise for the delay in replying. The landlord said that the response had been due on 7 December 2022. As the landlord had not met its target timescale for replying to the stage one complaint, it was reasonable that it had written to the resident to apologise for the delay.
The landlord sent its stage one reply on 9 February 2023 and apologised for the late reply. The landlord had therefore taken 65 working days to reply, which was longer than the 20-working day timescale in its complaints policy. The overall time taken for the landlord to reply was therefore unreasonable.
The resident wrote to the landlord on 15 February 2023 to advise that she was dissatisfied with the stage one reply. She requested the landlord to arrange for a complaints panel to review her complaint.
The landlord acknowledged the complaint on 17 February 2023, which was appropriate. It sent its stage 2 reply on 16 May 2023, which was 61 working days after the resident submitted her stage 2 complaint on 15 February 2023. The time taken to reply was therefore inappropriate as it was much longer than the landlord’s 20-working day target in its complaints policy. However, the landlord had phoned the resident on 13 April 2023 to explain it no longer had a complaints panel and apologise that there had been a delay in responding to her complaint because of staff sickness.
The landlord confirmed in its stage 2 reply that the delay in replying had been due to an administrative error and staff sickness. It accepted that its complaint monitoring should have identified the outstanding complaint.
Overall, the Ombudsman has found there was service failure in relation to the landlord’s complaint handling because it exceeded its target timescales for responding at both stages of the process. However, the finding takes into account that the landlord contacted the resident at various points to apologise for the delays and it explained in its stage 2 reply that the delay was largely due to its complaint handler being taken ill.
The Ombudsman has ordered the landlord to pay £100 compensation to the resident to put things right in terms of the complaint handling. This sum is within the range of financial redress shown in the remedies guidance for service failures, such as delays where the failures may not have significantly affected the outcome for the resident.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 42.f. of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of leaks causing damp, mould and damage to possessions is outside the jurisdiction of the Ombudsman.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s report of a lack of heating.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure by the landlord in its handling of the associated complaints.

Orders

The landlord is ordered within 4 weeks of this report to:
1. Write to the resident to apologise for the failings identified in this report.
2. Pay the resident a total of £200 compensation, comprised of:

£100 for the handling of the resident’s report of a lack of heating.
£100 for the complaint handling failures.

Recommendation

It is recommended that the landlord sends the resident details of how she can submit a claim to the landlord’s public liability insurer for any damaged possessions.