London Borough of Barnet (202104957)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202104957

London Borough of Barnet

30 May 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

The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of:
1. Noise from the pipes in the property.
2. Defects to the door entry system and the rear communal door.
3. Cleaning issues in relation to the communal areas.
4. Other defects to the communal areas of the block.
5. The removal of the recycling bins.
6. Noise nuisance at night.

Jurisdiction

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.
After carefully considering all the evidence, the following aspects of the resident’s complaint are outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction:
1. The removal of the recycling bins.
2. Noise nuisance at night.
In terms of the removal of the recycling bins, the resident wrote to the landlord on 21 June 2021 and advised the landlord that part of her complaint was about the removal of the recycling bins since 2019. The Ombudsman encourages residents to raise complaints with their landlords in a timely manner, which would normally be within six months of the matters arising. Paragraph 42(c) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme states: “The Ombudsman may not consider complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion… were not brought to the attention of the member as a formal complaint within a reasonable period which would normally be within six months of the matters arising”. This Service has not seen any evidence to show that the resident had formally complained to the landlord about the removal of the recycling bins until 2021, even though the bins had been removed in 2019.
In relation to the noise nuisance at night, paragraph 42(k) of the Scheme states: “The Ombudsman may not consider complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion… fall properly within the jurisdiction of another Ombudsman, regulator or complaint-handling body”.
The resident wrote to the landlord on 21 June 2021 and indicated her dissatisfaction that the Out of Hours Noise team had not responded to her call in a timely manner. The council’s website confirms that the out of hours noise service is provided by the council’s Environmental Health department, rather than by the landlord. Also, the landlord confirmed to the resident in its stage one reply that it does not provide an out of hours noise service. Therefore, as the service is provided by the local authority’s Environmental Health department, rather than by the landlord, it is not within the remit of the Housing Ombudsman to investigate the complaint. This Service is only able to investigate complaints about the actions of local authorities in connection with their housing activities in so far as they relate to the provision or management of housing. Complaints related to the actions of a local authority’s Environmental Health service may be considered by the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman (LGSCO).

Background and summary of events

The resident is a leaseholder of the property, which is a one-bedroom, second floor flat. The landlord is a local authority arm’s length management organisation.
The lease agreement obliges the landlord to keep in good and substantial repair and condition the structure of the block and “pipes and the service installations save those exclusively serving the flat”.
On 14 May 2021, the landlord raised a repair order to unblock the communal drains, which the resident had reported were causing a back surge in her kitchen sink. The landlord’s repairs log indicates that this job was completed on 18 May 2021.
The resident contacted the landlord on 25 May 2021 to report that she was experiencing ‘gurgling’ noises from the pipework in the kitchen and that she was still experiencing occasional backsurging of water into the kitchen sink. The resident explained that a plumber from the landlord’s contractor had attended on 25 May 2021, but she had been unable to provide the plumber with access to the property.
The landlord wrote to the resident on 27 May 2021 to confirm that it would raise another repair order for the contractor to investigate the drainage problems. The landlord’s repairs log indicates that a new job was raised on 1 June 2021 but this was cancelled.
On 4 June 2021, the landlord contacted the Ombudsman to confirm that it would log a new stage one complaint in relation to the resident’s concerns about the noise from the pipework and other issues. The landlord stated that it had not registered any formal complaints from the resident since 2018.
On 9 June 2021, the landlord raised a further order regarding the noise from the kitchen pipework (the resident had advised the landlord that, according to a report she had received from her own plumber, the problem was related to the communal pipes). The landlord’s repairs log indicates that the job was completed on 14 July 2021.
On 21 June 2021, the landlord wrote to the resident advising her that it had logged a new stage one complaint following contact from the Ombudsman and the complaint covered the following points:
1. ‘Gurgling’ noises from the kitchen pipework;
2. Vandalism to the rear communal door for the block;
3. Communal areas within the block that needed cleaning.
The resident wrote to the landlord on 21 June 2021 and clarified that her complaint consisted of the following urgent issues:
1. ‘Gurgling’ noise from the condensation pipe since 2019;
2. ‘Gurgling’ noise causing water to “explode” in the kitchen sink since April 2021;
3. The intercom for the external communal doors had not worked since May 2021 and the doors were currently open;
4. The communal backdoor lock had been missing since 2020;
The resident also listed the following “less urgent issues” in her email:
1. There were cracks, leaks and mould on the ceiling of the communal balcony outside the property;
2. There were other cracks and peeling paint along communal balconies within the block;
3. A piece of one of the walls had broken away on the second floor of the block;
4. The communal floors within the block were dirty;
5. The recycling bins had been removed since 2019;
6. The numbers on the pram sheds had been switched around and the resident now did not have access to her pram shed;
7. The external gas cupboard doors needed to be replaced for each flat;
8. The out of hours noise service had not come out when called by the resident regarding noise nuisance.
The landlord sent its stage one reply on 5 July 2021, in which it stated the following:
1. On receipt of the email from the Ombudsman on 3 June 2021, the landlord had phoned the resident on the following day and left a voicemail message to discuss the complaint. As the landlord had not received a return phone call from the resident, it logged a stage one complaint on 21 June 2021.
2. According to its records, the resident had not given the landlord access to the property to investigate the ‘gurgling’ noise in the pipes because the resident had been informed that the noise was not caused by pipes inside the property.
3. The landlord had raised a job for a contractor to carry out repairs to the front and rear communal entryphone doors.
4. The landlord had raised a job to repair the leak from the balcony walkway above the property.
5. No further leaks had been observed by the inspector during his recent visit and the cracks/peeling paint to the communal ceiling were considered to be “purely aesthetic” and would therefore be dealt with during the next planned cyclical works for the block (planned for 2024/25).
6. The landlord had raised an order to repair the damaged pebble dash wall inside the block.
7. The caretakers cleaned the block fortnightly and inspections were carried out to check the cleaning standards.
8. The recycling bins were removed by the council due to reported misuse of the bins by residents and were replaced with additional refuse bins.
9. The landlord understood that the resident had alleged that one of her neighbours had switched the numbers on the pram sheds and changed the locks. However, the landlord said it had no evidence that this had occurred.
10. The landlord had raised an order to ease and adjust 19 gas cupboard doors on the first and second floors of the block.
11. In relation to the reported lack of response by the out of hours noise team, this related to the council’s Environmental Health team and was not therefore something that the landlord could deal with. The landlord confirmed that it did not operate an out of hours noise nuisance team.
12. The landlord stated that it did not uphold the complaint because the matters had not been reported to it previously.
The landlord’s repairs log shows that a repair order was raised on 6 July 2021 to trace and remedy the noise from the pipes and the log indicates that the job was completed on 30 July 2021.
A copy of a receipt provided by the resident states that a private contractor attended the property on 3 August 2021 to inspect the boiler and flue and found there were no faults with the system. However, the private contractor’s report stated that water was found to be “backing up” from the internal waste pipework to the flats.
On 12 August 2021, the resident wrote to the landlord and asked to be reimbursed for the cost of the private contractor, which was £106.80.
The resident sent a stage two complaint to the landlord on 24 August 2021, in which she reported the following:
1. The ‘gurgling’ noise in the kitchen had reduced but was still present when her upstairs neighbour was using the water.
2. The rear communal door had been vandalised and was still not working (the lock was missing).
3. The intercom was still out of service and the security doors remained open.
4. Other maintenance and cleaning issues remained outstanding.
5. The resident requested the landlord to escalate the most urgent issues.
The landlord wrote to the resident on 9 September 2021 to advise her that there would be a delay in sending the stage two reply. The landlord stated that the reply would be sent by 14 September 2021.
On 14 September 2021, the landlord wrote to the resident with its stage two reply, in which it stated the following:
1. The landlord had allocated a job to its contractor to deal with the recurring blockage in the resident’s kitchen sink and this required the contractor to access a manhole in the nearby launderette. However, access to the launderette was unavailable and the matter was not correctly followed-up by the contractor or landlord and the job had been incorrectly cancelled.
2. A further order had been raised at the start of June 2021 to deal with the blockage, but the resident had been asked to provide proof that the problem was not originating from her property. The landlord stated that this was unacceptable as there had been evidence that the manhole in the launderette was blocked.
3. The contractor had attended the property a week later and found that the overflow from the boiler was flowing back into the resident’s kitchen sink. The contractor attempted to rectify this but concluded that the pipework was scaled.
4. The landlord’s in-house contractor followed the matter up and was able to gain access to the property on 30 July 2021 (having initially been unable to gain access on 14 July 2021). The contractor concluded that the noise was due to siphonage from the boiler condensate pipe to the outlet. The resident was therefore advised to discuss this with her private contractor and the landlord apologised that there had been a delay in coming to its conclusion.
5. The landlord confirmed that the blockage to the drainage had been resolved, but it would be carrying out further visits in the forthcoming weeks to check that there were no further drainage issues.
6. The landlord’s records showed that the entryphone doors and system had been vandalised on various occasions and work was carried out in October 2020, November 2020 and July 2021 to replace or repair the locks and the damaged components. The latest outage was due to water ingress from the roof into an intake cupboard. An order had been raised to deal with the water ingress and, after this had been resolved, an order would be raised to repair the door entry system.
7. In relation to the cleaning, the landlord confirmed that its contractor had carried out a deep clean of the external stairs and landings on 4 September 2021. The landlord had then inspected the areas on 7 September 2021 and confirmed that the areas were clean.
8. The landlord upheld the resident’s complaint because of the length of time it had taken to resolve the issues.
9. As a goodwill gesture, the landlord agreed to reimburse the resident for the £106.80 she had paid for a private contractor to attend her property on 3 August 2021 to investigate the noise from the pipes.
On the 14 September 2021, the resident wrote to the landlord and reiterated that she had been advised by her contractor that the noise emanating from the pipes was not due to any internal faults in her property. She had been advised that the problem was due to a blockage in the waste pipes running through the block.
On 18 October 2021, the resident wrote to the Ombudsman to report that the ‘gurgling’ noise in the pipework was continuing, but water was no longer backsurging into the kitchen sink. The resident advised that the intercom issues had been resolved, although some of the intercom buttons at the rear of the building were too sticky to use.

Assessment and findings

Scope of the investigation

In her email dated 21 June 2021, the resident reported that she had been hearing a ‘gurgling’ noise in the condensate pipe since 2019. The Ombudsman encourages residents to raise complaints with their landlords in a timely manner, which would normally be within six months of the matters arising. Paragraph 42(c) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme states: “The Ombudsman may not consider complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion…were not brought to the attention of the member as a formal complaint within a reasonable period which would normally be within six months of the matters arising”. The landlord logged a stage one complaint about the noise in the condensate pipe on 21 June 2021 and therefore, whilst the information about the noise in earlier years provides contextual background to the current complaint, this assessment focuses on the complaint about the noise from 2021.
The resident’s email also states that the communal back door lock had been removed since 2020. Again, as this Service has not seen any evidence that the resident formally complained about this matter at the time, the evidence relating to 2020 has been considered as context, however, the investigation regarding the communal door has focussed on the events from 2021 onwards.

Noise from the pipes in the property

The landlord’s responsive repairs policy sets out five categories for day-to-day repairs:
1. Out of hours emergency – make safe within four hours and complete within 24 hours;
2. Daytime emergency – make safe within four hours and complete within 24 hours;
3. First time fix (by appointment) – attend and complete on the appointed date and within 15 working days of the order being raised;
4. Programmed works – these require a pre-inspection and are completed within 25 working days (inclusive of the pre-inspection);
5. Planned works – these are larger and complex works and are completed within 60 working days.
The landlord raised an order on 14 May 2023 to unblock the drainage on the estate, which was causing water to backsurge into the resident’s kitchen sink. It is not clear from the evidence seen by the Ombudsman whether this was also linked to the noise emanating from the pipes. The resident had advised the landlord that she had called out her own plumbers on previous occasions and they had informed her that the problem was not caused by any of the pipework within her property. The landlord’s stage two reply confirms that the blockage was caused by a blocked manhole in the nearby launderette, which the landlord was unable to gain access to. The order was therefore cancelled, which the landlord accepts was inappropriate. A further order was raised on 2 June 2021 to deal with the ‘gurgling’ noise from the pipes inside the property and with the backsurging into the kitchen sink. On this occasion, the landlord asked the resident for proof that the problem did not originate from her property and the order was cancelled. The landlord’s records suggest that the contractor visited the property but was unable to gain access. Nevertheless, the landlord accepted in its stage two reply that the cancellation of the job had been inappropriate as the contractor had not followed its no access procedure.
A further order was raised on 9 June 2021 to deal with the ‘gurgling’ noise from the pipes in the resident’s kitchen. The landlord’s contractor attended the property (the date of the visit is unclear from the evidence) and concluded that the overflow from the boiler was flowing back through the sink. They attempted to address this, but the landlord stated that they were unable to resolve the problem because the pipework was scaled. The landlord has stated that they also attempted to get access to the launderette, but again they were unsuccessful. The job was reallocated to the landlord’s in-house team. The team visited the resident on 30 July 2021 and concluded that the ‘gurgling’ noise was due to siphonage from the condensate pipe running into the kitchen sink (the landlord’s stage two reply also confirmed that the blocked manhole in the launderette had been cleared, however, the date of the clearance is unclear from the evidence seen). The landlord recommended that the resident contact her own contractor to progress any remedial work. Given that the resident had already arranged for her own contractor to investigate the noise/backsurge and she had been advised the problems were external, it was reasonable that the landlord carried out further investigations into the cause of the problems in June and July 2021.
The landlord concluded that the noise problem was internal to the property and therefore the resident was responsible for arranging the necessary repairs. While the Ombudsman recognises that the advice from the resident’s contractor conflicted with that of the landlord’s operatives, the landlord was entitled to accept the findings of its operatives following the inspection. It was therefore reasonable for the landlord to advise the resident that she should contact her own contractor to progress any remedial work.
In terms of the time taken for the landlord to identify the source of the noise in the pipework, there was a delay between the order being raised on 14 May 2021 and the landlord carrying out its ‘final’ visit on 30 July 2021. The landlord accepted in its stage two reply that despite the problems in gaining access to the launderette and a ‘no access’ visit to the resident’s property, its response had been was unreasonable because of the inappropriate cancellation of orders, the contractor failing to follow its ‘no access’ procedure and an initial failure to follow up the order. All of this resulted in a delay, which meant that the resident had to wait longer than was necessary to receive the landlord’s findings. It was therefore right that the landlord offered financial redress in its stage two reply, in the form of reimbursing the resident for the cost of employing a private plumber. The Ombudsman’s view is that the landlord made a reasonable offer of redress because:
1. The landlord had acknowledged these failings in its stage two reply;
2. The landlord offered to reimburse the resident for the cost of employing a private plumber, which was £106.80;
3. The landlord had made efforts to access both the launderette and the resident’s property in order to address the noise/blockage, but had experienced issues with access;
4. The landlord’s contractor attempted to deal with the boiler overflow running into the sink (despite it being the leaseholder’s responsibility), but had been unsuccessful due to reported scaling.

Defects to the door entry system and the rear communal door

The landlord’s repairs log shows that between 2020 and 2021, there were a number of orders raised to repair the communal door entry system (front and rear doors). The landlord stated in its stage two reply that some of the repairs were needed because the doors had been vandalised. The repairs log shows that the following jobs were raised in 2021 to repair the door entry system and indicates the dates the jobs were completed (all jobs were raised on a 15-working day priority):
1. The front right-hand main door was broken – an order was raised on 11 March 2021 and the job was completed on 13 April 2021, ie within 22 working days;
2. The door latch was missing from the main door – an order was raised on 12 March 2021 and the job was completed on 16 April 2021, ie within 24 working days;
3. The electronic system to the main entry door was broken – an order was raised on 21 April 2021 and the job was completed on 11 May 2021, ie within 13 working days;
4. Defective intercom to both entrances – an order was raised on 5 July 2021 and the job was completed on 13 July 2021, ie within 6 working days;
5. The release mechanism was missing from the main entry door – an order was raised on 19 May 2021 and the job was completed on 7 July 2021, ie within 34 working days;
6. The intercom was not working (possible water damage) – an order was raised on 1 June 2021 and the job was completed on 19 July 2021, ie within 34 working days;
7. The door entry was not working (rear side entrance) – an order was raised on 20 July 2021 and the job was completed on 26 July 2021, ie within four working days;
8. The rear door was vandalised and lock removed – an order was raised on 2 August 2021 and the job was completed on 24 August 2021, ie within 16 working days;
9. The main communal entry doors were not working – an order was raised on 20 September 2021 and there is no completion date shown on the system. However, the resident’s letter dated 18 October 2021 to the Ombudsman stated that the intercom issues had been resolved, apart from sticky intercom buttons at the rear of the block;
10. The communal rear door was vandalised (lock removed) – an order was raised on 17 November 2021 and the job was completed on 22 December 2021, ie within 25 working days.
The above indicates that most of the jobs took longer than the 15 working day target to complete, however, none of the timescales were excessive given that some of the repairs were due to vandalism, rather than wear and tear, and therefore may have needed extensive repairs.
The landlord has a duty to undertake repairs to the communal door entry system and repairs will arise from time-to-time because of wear and tear, vandalism or misuse. The recurrence of repairs to the door entry system does not necessarily demonstrate the presence of an underlying fault that requires more in-depth investigation. Also, the repeated occurrence of problems with the system does not, in itself, indicate a service failure or maladministration by the landlord, providing it responds appropriately with repairs when an issue arises. Therefore, based on the evidence provided to this Service, the Ombudsman’s view is that the landlord responded reasonably to reports of defects to the door entry system because it raised the necessary repair orders and carried out repairs within reasonable timescales.

Cleaning issues in relation to the communal areas

The landlord’s website states that every 2-3 weeks the caretakers will carry out various cleaning and caretaking duties including:
1. Check and clean the communal bin area and remove any excess rubbish;
2. Sweep and mop all internal entrances, corridors, staircases and lifts;
3. Clean windowsills, banisters and railings;
4. Clean walls as required e.g. remove any dirt or scuffs;
5. Litter pick all communal areas.
The landlord confirmed in its stage one reply that the caretakers clean the block every fortnight and inspections are carried out to ensure the cleaning is carried out to a good standard. However, the landlord has advised this Service that from 11 January 2021, some of the scheduled cleaning tasks may have been reduced to allow caretaking staff to clean and sanitize ‘high traffic areas’ such as lift buttons, intercom systems, communal entrances and door handles in order to reduce the risks of Covid transmission. The landlord wrote to its residents on 8 January 2021 to advise them of these changes.This was a policy decision taken by the landlord based on the circumstances that existed at the time and therefore the Ombudsman is not in a position to question this.The landlord has confirmed that the policy was communicated to residents by writing to them individually and therefore the change in policy was appropriately communicated to residents prior to its introduction.
During this investigation, the Ombudsman requested copies of the landlord’s records of estate inspections showing its assessment of the cleaning standards for the block. However, these were not provided by the landlord and therefore in the absence of these records, the Ombudsman is unable to determine whether the block was being cleaned to the agreed standard during 2021. This Service has, however, considered the landlord’s response once the resident raised her concerns about the cleaning of the block. The resident first raised her concerns in June 2021, firstly with the Ombudsman and then with the landlord. In response, the landlord wrote in its stage one reply on 5 July 2021 that the block was cleaned on a fortnightly basis and was inspected to check the cleaning standards. The view of the Ombudsman is that the landlord’s reply was too generic and it was a shortcoming on the landlord’s part that it did not, for example, provide details of its recent estate inspections to demonstrate whether the agreed cleaning standards were being met. Furthermore, as the landlord had previously advised residents that scheduled cleaning tasks might be affected because it was targeting the cleaning of high-traffic areas, the landlord should have advised the resident whether this policy was having any impact on the block cleaning.
In its stage two reply, the landlord confirmed that it had arranged for the external stairs and landings within the block to be deep cleaned on 4 September 2021. The block was then inspected by the landlord on 7 September 2021 to ensure the cleaning had been carried out to a satisfactory standard. This suggests that the landlord had recognised that areas of the block required additional cleaning (possibly as a result of the restrictions due to Covid) and took steps to address this. This was a reasonable approach by the landlord because it showed that it had listened to the resident’s concerns and had taken steps to address them.

Other defects to the communal areas of the block

The landlord’s responsive repairs policy confirms that it is responsible for shared (communal) areas including entrances, halls, stairways, lifts, rubbish chutes, and bins (including recycling bins).
The resident wrote to the landlord on 21 June 2021 and listed the following additional issues in relation to the communal areas:
1. Cracks, leaks and mould on the ceiling of the communal balcony outside the property;
2. Cracks along communal balconies within the block and peeling paint;
3. A piece of one of the walls had broken away on the second floor of the block;
4. The numbers on the pram sheds had been switched around and the resident now did not have access to her pram shed;
5. The external gas cupboard doors needed to be replaced for each flat.
The landlord provided a response on each of these points in its stage one reply. The landlord confirmed that it had raised orders to deal with the cracks, leak and mould (item (a) above), the broken wall (item (c) above) and the gas cupboard doors (item (e) above). The landlord’s repairs log confirms that individual orders were raised on 5 July 2021 to carry out the necessary repairs. Each of the repairs was raised on a 25-working day priority, which the landlord’s repairs policy states is used where a pre-inspection is required. Given the nature of the repairs in question, and the need to check details such as measurements/quantities, it was appropriate for the landlord to raise these orders and to categorise them as needing a pre-inspection.
In terms of the cracks and peeling paint along the communal balconies (item (b) above), the landlord advised the resident that it had inspected the cracks and found them to be “aesthetic” and therefore they would be dealt with as part of the planned cyclical work, along with the peeling paint. It was appropriate for the landlord to arrange for one of its inspectors to examine the cracks to ensure they were not structural. Having done so, the landlord was entitled to rely on the findings of its inspector, who reported that the cracks were aesthetic. The landlord’s website states that blocks will receive external repairs and decorations as part of its major works programme and therefore it was reasonable for the landlord to advise the resident that the cracks and peeling paint would be dealt with as part of its planned cyclical work.
The resident had reported to the landlord that the numbers on the pram sheds had been changed and, as a result, the resident no longer had access to her pram shed. The landlord stated in its stage one reply that it understood the matter related to a dispute between the resident and a neighbour. The resident had, according to the landlord, alleged that the neighbour had changed the lock to her pram shed. The landlord advised that it had no evidence to substantiate this claim and that the matter was essentially a neighbour dispute. Therefore, the landlord confirmed it would pass the matter to the relevant Housing Officer to discuss the issue with the resident. The landlord’s website states that if there is a dispute between two neighbours, the level of involvement by the landlord will vary on a case by case basis. It was therefore reasonable for the landlord to refer the matter to its Housing Officer to discuss with the resident because this would enable the landlord to determine the extent to which it should become involved.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 53(b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, and in the Ombudsman’s opinion, there was reasonable redress offered by the landlord in relation to its handling of the resident’s reports of noise from the pipes in the property.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s reports of defects to the door entry system and the rear communal door.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s reports of cleaning issues in relation to the communal areas.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s reports of other defects to the communal areas of the block.

Reasons

There were delays in the landlord identifying the source of the noise in the pipework due to the inappropriate cancellation of orders, a failure to follow the ‘no access’ procedure and a lack of follow-up action in relation to orders. However, the landlord acknowledged the failings, made efforts to resolve the issue and offered to reimburse the resident for the cost of employing a private contractor.
The landlord raised the necessary repair orders to deal with defects to the door entry system and carried out repairs within reasonable timescales given that the systems had been subject to vandalism.
Although the landlord did not provide the resident with sufficient information, such as estate inspection sheets, to demonstrate the block was being adequately cleaned, it listened to the resident’s concerns and arranged for the external stairs and landings to be deep cleaned and subsequently checked.
In terms of the other issues reported by the resident in relation to communal areas, the landlord raised the appropriate repair orders and advised the resident that other defects would be dealt with as part of the planned cyclical works programme. The landlord also appropriately referred the issue regarding the pram sheds to its Housing Officer to follow up.

Recommendation

The landlord should reoffer the resident £106.80 as reimbursement for employing a private plumber, if this has not already been paid.