Applications are open to join the next Housing Ombudsman Resident Panel – find out more Housing Ombudsman Resident Panel.

Kingston upon Thames Council (202004119)

Back to Top

 

 

 

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202004119

Kingston upon Thames Council

19 January 2021


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 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 concerns how the landlord responded to the resident’s repair report for a communal light.

Background and summary of events

  1. The resident is a secure tenant of the landlord, which is a local authority. The property is a maisonette in a communal building.
  2. On 8 July 2020 the resident wrote to the landlord to report that a light in the communal area of the building had stopped working. The landlord replied on the same day and informed her that a work order had been raised and an appointment booked for the morning of 10 July.
  3. The resident wrote again on 11 July 2020 and informed the landlord that the light had yet to be fixed.
  4. On 13 July 2020 the resident wrote to the landlord and asked to make a formal complaint into the matter. She said she was unhappy that the light was not repaired on 10 July, and that she did not receive a response to her 11 July email.
  5. The landlord acknowledged the complaint on 14 July 2020 and sent a stage one response to the resident on 16 July.
  6. The landlord explained that its contractor visited the building on 10 July 2020 and identified the broken light was part of a lighting programme and the responsibility of a sub-contractor. The sub-contractor had been informed and would undertake the repair. The landlord was unable to give a date as to when the repair would be carried out at the time the response was sent.
  7. The landlord apologised for not responding to the resident’s 11 July 2020 email, and explained that as the repair was to a communal area and not to a property, an update would not be automatically provided.
  8. On 16 July 2020 the resident wrote to the landlord and requested an escalation of the complaint to stage two on the grounds that:
    1. The sub-contractor should have fixed the light on 10 July.
    2. The contractor should not need a sub-contractor to fix the light.
    3. No date had been provided by the landlord as to when the repair will occur.
    4. Not having the light working in the communal area was dangerous.
    5. The delay in completing the repair had breached the landlord’s repair policy.
  9. The landlord replied on 16 July 2020, confirmed that the complaint had been escalated to stage two and that it aimed to provide a response within 15 working days.
  10. On 17 July 2020, the contractor wrote to the landlord and informed it that the light had been successfully repaired the previous day.
  11. The landlord sent a stage two complaint response to the resident on 5 August 2020. It informed her that:
    1. The sub-contractor did not visit the property on 10 July 2020, the contractor attended and then identified the light as being the responsibility of the sub-contractor.
    2. Repairs to lights are covered by both the contractor’s staff and the sub-contractor.
    3. After being alerted by the contractor, the sub-contractor attended the building on 16 July and repaired the light.
    4. The sub-contractor repaired the light within one week of being notified by the contractor. The landlord apologised for the inconvenience this had caused and explained that due to the COVID-19 pandemic, some jobs and services would be delayed.
    5. It regularly discusses the ongoing performance with its contractors and raises any complaint made by residents relating to repairs.
  12. The landlord concluded its response by informing the resident that she had now exhausted its internal complaints process, and explained the steps to take to bring her case to this Service should she remain dissatisfied.

Assessment and findings

  1. Section 2.3.2 of the landlord’s repairs policy states that it is responsible for “communal areas such as pathways, estate roads, hallways, communal stairs and lighting, balconies and waste chutes”.
  2. The landlord contracts a maintenance contractor to undertake repairs on its behalf. As part of the maintenance contract, a sub-contractor is responsible for the upkeep of lights under an emergency lighting programme. When the contractor attended the building on 10 July 2020, it identified the light as part of this programme and informed the sub-contractor.
  3. Section 2.7 of the repairs policy describes the three categories of repairs and how these will be responded to. It states that emergency orders will be attended to within two hours, urgent orders attended to within 24 hours and routine repairs will be attended to within one to 20 working days.
  4. Emergency repairs as described as:
    1. Serious flooding or leaks.
    2. Making safe collapsed ceilings and floors.
    3. Blocked flue to an open fire or boiler.
    4. Stair-lift and ceiling track hoist breakdowns
    5. Major health and safety repairs to communal parts.
  5. Urgent repairs are described as:
    1. A total loss of water or electrical supply.
    2. Total or partial loss of gas supply.
    3. Blocked toilet, soil stacks and sewers
    4. Insecure windows and doors.
    5. Unsafe electrical fitting.
    6. Lift breakdowns.
    7. Minor health and safety repairs to communal parts.
  6. The repair logs provided by the landlord show that when the issue was reported by the resident on 8 July 2020, the repair was categorised as routine and a work order was raised for 10 July.
  7. The sub-contractor completed the repair on 16 July 2020. This was within the target date set by the landlord.
  8. The landlord followed its policies and procedures in respect of the repair. The repair did not meet the criteria to be considered an emergency or urgent as described in its repairs policy. Therefore, the landlord correctly categorised the repair as routine. The landlord apologised for the delay in the sub-contractor completing repairs, which it attributed to the working conditions at the time due to the COVID-19 pandemic. However, the light was still successfully repaired well within the 20-working day window for routine repairs.

Determination (decision)

  1. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration by the landlord in respect of the complaint.