Woking Borough Council (202311569)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202311569

Woking Borough Council

11 November 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 the landlord’s handling of repairs to the resident’s property.

Background

The resident holds an assured tenancy with the landlord since 14 June 2004. The property is a 1st floor 3 bed maisonette. The resident lives at the property with her daughter. The landlord’s records show that it has a vulnerability type recorded for the resident of wheelchair user or impaired mobility.
The landlord inspected the resident’s property on 21 February 2023. Its inspection found 13 issues that required repair. It later identified an issue with the resident’s roof on 5 April 2023.The landlord completed all 14 repairs between 30 March 2023 and 25 August 2023.
The resident complained to the landlord on 13 April 2023 about the landlord’s handling of the repairs. The resident was unhappy with the quality of the repairs completed. The landlord provided its stage 1 response on 17 April 2023. It said that it had completed repairs like for like and advised that the outstanding double glazing repairs were in hand.
On 24 April 2023, the resident requested escalation of her complaint. She said that the landlord had not addressed all her points and disputed the accuracy of the response it had provided. The landlord provided the resident with a stage 2 complaint response on 25 May 2023. It said that:
1. The extractor fan and sealed LED light it fitted to the resident’s bathroom on 12 April 2023 were upgrades to what was previously installed. It advised that it would arrange an appointment to investigate why the fan was noisier that the resident thought it should be.
2. Tenants are responsible for all internal decorations to their home. However, having looked at the picture of the bathroom light, it had made the decision to decorate the resident’s bathroom ceiling, as a gesture of goodwill.
3. It apologised that it did not contact the resident to let her know that it had cancelled the appointment regarding the gutter cleaning. It advised that it had completed the gutter inspection and clearance on 19 April 2023.
4. It did not have the resident’s mobile number listed and only had her landline and email address recorded. Its staff member had told it that she only wanted to be contacted by email, so that she had an audit trail.
5. It was required to fit smoke seals and an overhead door closure to bring the resident’s kitchen door up to standard with new fire regulations.
6. Its contractor’s supervisor would visit the resident’s property on 2 June 2023 at 11am to inspect all the repairs completed and ensure that the resident was happy with them.
The resident contacted this Service on 2 June 2023 and explained that the landlord had still not dealt with the black mould. Furthermore, the landlord had missed the appointment arranged for that day. The resident requested that this Service investigate her complaint. The landlord completed repairs to the resident’s roof on 16 August 2023. The resident confirmed to this Service in October 2024 that following this repair and the landlord treating her bedroom walls for mould, she had experienced no further issues with damp and mould inside her property.

Assessment and findings

Policy and Procedure

The resident’s tenancy agreement under paragraph 3 states that the landlord will keep in good working order:
1. The structure, outside and shared parts of the building.
The landlord has confirmed that it currently does not have a repairs policy. It has explained that a policy for repairs, such as for damp and mould are in development.

Repairs to the property

On 21 February 2023, the landlord inspected the resident’s property and identified 13 issues that required a repair or further investigation. The issues/repairs identified were to:
1. Replace the double glazing in the lounge, main bedroom and spare room.
2. To repair a leaking radiator in the lounge and install Thermostatic Radiator Valves (TRVs) on the radiators in the lounge, main bedroom, spare room and daughter’s bedroom.
3. To install a new light and extractor fan in the bathroom, as well as replacing a missing gasket on the window in this room.
4. To install a heat alarm in the kitchen and upgrade the kitchen door to meet fire regulations.
5. To check the loft insulation and replace if necessary.
6. To clear and clean the gutter and down pipe at the rear of the property.
The landlord in its stage 1 and 2 responses referred to difficulty its contractor had in contacting the resident. This was in response to the resident disputing that its contractor had made multiple attempts to contact her to arrange appointments.
The contractor did not attempt to contact the resident until 20 March 2023. As the contractor could not reach the resident by telephone, it sent her an email requesting that she contact it. The resident called the contractor in response to this email on 21 March 2023 and booked an appointment. This was an opportunity for the contractor to ask the resident for her mobile number, as it only had her landline number at this time.
The resident provided the landlord with her mobile number on 4 April 2023 who then provided this to its contractor on 4 and 5 April 2023. The resident returned calls when left voicemails on her mobile, such as on 12 April 2023. However, the contractor continued to contact the resident at times on her landline despite this number not having a voicemail facility or being the resident’s best contact number.
It is not fair or reasonable to put any responsibility on the resident for any delays the contractor experienced in arranging appointments. It took the contractor 27 days to initially contact the resident. It then did not take the opportunity to obtain the resident’s best contact number. The resident contacted the contractor within a reasonable timescale after it contacted her by email or left her a voicemail on her mobile number.
It is unreasonable that the landlord did not acknowledge that the resident was not responsible for the issue its contractor experienced in contacting the resident in its complaint responses. Instead, the landlord stated that neither it nor its contractor had the resident’s mobile number and that it had not provided her mobile number to its contractor. This information was incorrect, as the resident provided her mobile number to the landlord on 4 April 2023, who then provided it to its contractor. This highlights poor communication and record keeping as the landlord had not recorded the resident mobile number despite her providing this to it.
The landlord’s failure to appropriately investigate the communication issue the resident experienced with its contractor left the resident feeling that the landlord was not listening to her and that it was accepting its contractor’s version of events over hers. This was a failure in service, as the landlord’s response was incorrect, which has caused the resident frustration.
The landlord completed the repairs to the radiators and installed TRVs on 30 March 2023. The landlord did not install a TRV on the radiator in the resident’s daughter’s bedroom, as the resident declined the installation. The resident explained that she declined this work as it would have required her to dismantle a bed to allow access to the radiator. It was appropriate for the landlord to mark this repair as complete after the resident declined to dismantle the bed to allow access.
The landlord completed the installation of a new bathroom light, extractor fan, heat alarm, kitchen door to fire door upgrade and window gasket replacement on 12 April 2023. The landlord checked the loft insulation on 28 April 2023. The landlord completed the double-glazing replacement on 7 June 2023 following an initial appointment on 27 April 2023. The landlord cleared and cleaned the resident’s gutters on 25 August 2023.
The landlord identified on 5 April 2023 that water was entering the resident’s property at the soffits and eaves. This and the gutter cleaning required scaffolding. The landlord’s contractor requested a quote for scaffolding on 4 May 2023 and received a quote on 22 June 2023. The landlord authorised the cost of scaffolding on 10 July 2023 and requested to complete a survey before agreeing the roof repair costs. The landlord’s contractor put up scaffolding on 19 July 2023 and requested the landlord arrange an inspection on 21 July 2023. The landlord completed a pre inspection on 15 August 2023 and the contractor completed roof repairs on 16 August 2023.
The resident complained on 11 August 2023 that she was unable to open some windows and that rain was still entering her property through the roof. The resident requested that the landlord confirm when it would complete the repair.
It took the landlord 37 days to complete the radiator work, 50 days to complete the bathroom and kitchen work, 66 days to check the loft insulation, 106 days to replace the double-glazing and 185 days to clean the gutters. In addition, it took the landlord 133 days to repair the roof from the date it identified the issue.
In the absence of repairs policy that might clarify the landlord’s target resolution timescales for each classification of repair, this investigation has taken into account the Ombudsman’s experience in assessing cases involving similar repair issues. The repair issues under investigation here would typically be defined as ‘routine’ repairs with a standard 28 calendar day timescale for resolution. There is a reasonable expectation for roof works and double glazing works such as those described here to take longer than this timescale and that has also been taken into consideration.
In all the circumstances of the case, the length of time it took the landlord to complete the repairs was unreasonable. While this Service acknowledges that roof repairs will take longer than a routine repair, there were delays in the landlord receiving a quote, authorising the quote and completing a pre-inspection for the roof. The combined delays at each of the above stages resulted in it taking an unreasonable amount of time for the landlord to complete the roof and gutter repairs. These delays resulted in the resident having repairs taking place at her property over a period of approximately six-months. This caused the resident repeated inconvenience and frustration over a long duration.
It would be to the landlord’s benefit to have a repairs policy that includes specific timescales for it to complete a repair within. This would confirm the service delivery timescales for how long it should take the landlord to complete a repair. This allows the landlord to set the resident’s expectations for when it should complete a repair by and encourages it to complete repairs as soon as possible. Improved repair timescales could reduce any detriment or inconvenience residents experience and improve the landlord/tenant relationship. It is noted that the landlord has confirmed that the development of such a policy is in progress.
The resident complained about the quality of the kitchen door upgrade on 13 April 2023, as some of the strip put in had fallen off. Furthermore, the resident complained that the landlord had not provided a new kitchen door as part of these upgrade works.
It was reasonable for the landlord to upgrade an existing door to meet fire safety standards, as there was no requirement for it to provide a new door if the existing door would meet requirements with the required upgrades. The landlord confirmed in its stage 1 response that it had reported the fire door issue to its contractor and that this was in hand. It was appropriate for the landlord to arrange a further repair if there was a quality issue with the original upgrade work.
The resident complained at stage 1 and 2 about the brightness of her new bathroom light and noise from her new extractor fan. The landlord explained at stage 1 that repairs are provided like for like and that extractor fans are not silent. At stage 2 the landlord advised that it would arrange an appointment to investigate the extractor fan. Furthermore, the landlord offered to paint the bathroom ceiling, as a gesture of goodwill to improve the look of the new bathroom light.
It was reasonable for the landlord to offer these actions to try to reduce the impact the new light and extractor fan had on the resident. The resident advised the landlord on 31 May 2023 that she did not need an appointment to check the extractor fan. Furthermore, she advised the landlord on 19 June 2023 that she would paint her own bathroom ceiling. Therefore, it was appropriate for the landlord to mark both repairs as completed and to take no further action.
The resident complained on 13 April 2023 and 24 April 2023 that a Health & Safety Inspector stated that her heating system and radiators should be condemned when an engineer was fitting the TRVs. The landlord did not address this at stage 1.
In its stage 2 the landlord advised that it had no records of a Health & Safety Inspector attending to check the heating system. The landlord considered that the resident was referring to the gas engineer who attended to fit the TRVs when referring to a Health & Safety Inspector.
There is no record that the landlord arranged for a Health & Safety Inspector to attend the resident’s property. Therefore, it was reasonable for the landlord to conclude that the resident was referring to the gas engineer. However, there is no evidence that the landlord addressed the resident’s concerns about whether her heating system and radiators had been condemned. It was a failure in service that the landlord did not address this issue at stage 1 or in full at stage 2. This left the resident feeling that the landlord had not addressed all her concerns.
If a Gas Safe engineer identifies a risk or hazard with a gas appliance, it must issue a gas safety warning. This service has seen no evidence that a Gas Safe engineer condemned the resident’s heating system. The landlord would be able to demonstrate to the resident that her heating system is in working order by providing her with a copy of the most recent gas safety certificate. It would have been reasonable for the landlord to provide a copy of this to the resident to reassure her that her heating working is in working order. An order has been included for the landlord to provide the resident with her most recent gas safety certificate.
The resident complained on 24 April 2023 that the landlord’s contractor did not attend an appointment it arranged for 19 April 2023 to clean her gutters. The resident explained that she waited in from 1pm but no one attended. However, she had since received an email from the contractor stating that it did attend but as her building was two storeys high, it would need scaffolding to complete the repair.
It is unreasonable that it took the landlord until 19 April 2023 to identify that it required scaffolding to complete the gutter cleaning. This Service would have expected the landlord to have identified this when it found that the resident’s gutters needed cleaning. This would have allowed the landlord to arrange the required scaffolding to complete the work sooner than it did. The landlord in its stage 2 response acknowledged that it should have been aware of the height of the resident’s building when it booked the appointment. It was appropriate that the landlord acknowledged this failure.
The landlord apologised in its stage 2 response that its contractor did not contact the resident to make her aware it had cancelled the appointment and to reschedule. However, the landlord then stated that the gutter inspection and clearance had been completed on 19 April 2023. This is a further example of poor communication, as the landlord apologised for a cancelled appointment it then went on to say it completed. The landlord did not complete the gutter clearance and inspection until 25 August 2023.
The contractor’s repair log does not provide a detailed overview of the resident’s repair journey. For example, the contractor recorded that the resident called it on 21 March 2023 to book appointments. The contractor booked appointments. However, it did not record on repair log what date it had booked appointments for. In addition, it is not clear when the contractor completed specific jobs. For example, its repair log does not state that it completed radiator work on 30 March 2023 or that it replaced an extractor fan on 12 April 2023.
Poor record keeping by the contractor effects the landlord’s ability to respond accurately to the resident’s complaint. A more detailed repair log may have given the landlord a better understanding of what stage each repair was at and prevented it from providing incorrect information regarding the gutter repair or whether its contractor had the resident’s mobile number.
The resident complained about damp and mould within their property on 13 April 2023. The landlord in its stage 1 response stated that its contractor supervisor would attend to assess the root cause of any damp and mould.
The landlord in its email to this Service on 15 October 2024 stated that it had no record of mould being reported or treated. Furthermore, the landlord stated that its contractor had attempted to contact the resident to discuss damp and mould but have had no contact with the resident.
The resident explained to this Service that someone visited her property who treated the mould in her bedroom by “splashing white liquid” around the top of the walls. The resident explained that since the landlord repaired the roof and treated the walls, she had experienced no further issues with damp or mould within her property.
This Service is satisfied that the landlord took appropriate action to resolve the issues of damp and mould within the resident’s property. However, it is concerning that the landlord does not have a record of the resident reporting mould or of the actions its contractor took to treat this. This is a further example of poor communication and record keeping.
The resident complained on 13 April 2023 that the fascia outside her bedroom window was black with mould. The resident requested the landlord confirm that the landlord would clean this as part of the gutter cleaning. In its stage 1 response, the landlord only stated that “the guttering will be fully cleaned.”
The resident advised in their stage 2 escalation that they had emailed the contractor to find out if it would clean the fascia and soffit, as well as the gutters. The landlord did not respond to this in its stage 2 response. The resident continued to raise cleaning the mould from her fascia in her correspondence with the landlord on 2 June 2023, 6 June 2023 and 19 September 2023. The landlord queried this with its contractor on 20 September 2023, who responded to say that cleaning the fascia and soffits was not on the scope of works.
The landlord has a responsibility under the tenancy agreement to keep the outside of the resident’s building in good working order. While black mould on the resident’s fascia and soffits may look unsightly, it may not impact the working order of the structure. Therefore, the landlord may not have a responsibility to clean this under the tenancy agreement.
This Service cannot determine whether there is an issue with the resident’s fascia that would impact the working order of the outside of the building. However, given the resident’s concerns, it would be appropriate for the landlord to inspect the resident’s fascia to determine if the black discoloration is affecting the working order of the fascia or building and to fix this if it is. Therefore, an order has been included for the landlord to take the above course of action.
The landlord had the opportunity to investigate this issue when the resident reported this. However, it did not address this as part of the resident’s complaint or instruct its contractor to investigate this as part of the scope of works it completed. This was a failure in service, as it has delayed the landlord investigating and resolving a potential issue effecting the resident’s property. In addition, it left the resident feeling like the landlord was not listening to her, as the landlord did not address the resident’s concerns despite her raising this on several occasions. This caused the resident further inconvenience and frustration and would have damaged the landlord tenant relationship.
The landlord arranged appointments for its contractor to attend the resident’s property on:
1. 19 April 2023 for gutter cleaning.
2. 2 June 2023 at 11am for its contractor supervisor to inspect the repairs completed to date.
3. 5 June 2023 for its contractor to paint the resident’s bathroom ceiling.
The resident complained by email on 23 April 2023, 2 June 2023 and 5 June 2023 that no one attended her property during the appointment timescale for the above appointments. The appointments in June 2023 are after the resident completed the landlord’s internal complaint procedure. However, they are appointments that the landlord agreed to arrange in its stage 2 response and relate to the resident’s complaint. Therefore, it has been considered reasonable for this service to consider these appointments in its investigation.
The landlord apologised in its stage 1 response that its contractor had not informed the resident that it had cancelled the appointment for 19 April 2023. Its contractor apologised on 5 June 2023 that its supervisor attended an hour after the arranged appointment on 2 June 2023 when no one was home. This service has seen no evidence that the landlord’s contractor replied to the resident’s email about the missed appointment on 5 June 2023. The contractor tried to arrange another appointment to paint the bathroom ceiling on 15 and 19 June 2023. Therefore, this Service is satisfied that the landlord’s contractor missed the appointment on 5 June 2023, as it attempted to rearrange this appointment.
The resident experienced three missed appointments. This caused the resident inconvenience and frustration waiting in for an appointment that did not go ahead.
Throughout this investigation, this Service identified issues with the landlords and its contractors record keeping, as it did not update its repair log to show specific appointment dates or repair completion dates. Furthermore, it did not update the resident’s mobile number when provided or record what actions it took regarding the resident’s reports of damp and mould. Due to this, this Service has included a recommendation for the landlord to review record keeping.
This investigation has found several failures in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s repairs, as the landlord:
1. Failed to complete routine repairs or the roof/gutter repairs within a reasonable timescale resulting in the resident having repairs ongoing at her property for 6-months.
2. Failed to address all the resident’s issues in its stage 1 and 2 response or respond to the resident’s requests request for it to clean the mould off her fascia.
3. Provided incorrect information in its response to the resident’s complaint.
4. Missed appointments on three occasions.
5. Demonstrated poor record keeping which impacted its response to the resident’s complaint.
The landlord apologised in its stage 2 response for any impact the repairs may have caused the resident. It was appropriate for the landlord to provide an apology. However, the landlord did not identify or address all the failures that this investigation has found. Therefore, in all the circumstances of the case, the Ombudsman finds maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s repairs.
This Service’s remedy guidance suggests that the Ombudsman award compensation of between £100 to £600 where there was a failure which adversely affected the resident. The length of time it took the landlord to complete all the repairs caused the resident inconvenience frustration over a period of 6-months. The missed appointments and failure to address all the issues the resident raised in its complaint response increased the inconvenience and frustration the resident experienced. Given the overall failures the resident experienced this Service considers an award of £500 fair for the impact this had on the resident.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s repairs.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

The landlord is ordered to do the following within 4 weeks from the date of this report, ensuring that it provides the Ombudsman with evidence of compliance by the same date:
Pay the resident compensation of £500 for the service failures identified in its handling of the resident’s repairs.
Provide a further apology in writing for the additional failures identified within this report.
Inspect the resident’s fascia to determine if the black discoloration is affecting the working order and confirm its findings to the resident, along with the timescale for any identified works.
Provide the resident with the most recent gas safety certificate to confirm that her heating system is in working order.

Recommendations

Review its and its contractors record keeping ensuring that going forward specific appointment dates, repair completion dates, contact details, as well as any repair feedback is clearly logged on its repair log and system.