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

Newham Council (201907092)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 201907092

Newham Council

07 April 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 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:
    1. the landlord’s handling of repairs to the resident’s bathroom.
    2. the landlord’s complaints handling.

Background and summary of events

Background

  1. The resident has occupied the property, a 1 bedroom flat, since 5 November 2007, under a secure tenancy agreement with the landlord.
  2. The resident states that the landlord has failed to complete repairs to his bathroom since 2018. The landlord’s repairs records show a number of leaks affecting the property and that jobs were raised to renew the bathroom grout and tiling at the property in May 2018, July 2018 and March 2019.

Summary of Events

  1. The resident made a formal complaint to the landlord on 28 March 2019 about delays in completing repairs to his bathroom, although he did not specify the repairs to be completed. A job had been booked for that day and the resident had waited in at the property but the landlord’s contractor had not attended. The resident stated that this was the second missed appointment. The resident requested financial compensation for the inconvenience and the delay, and for a manager to investigate the repairs required. He also asked for the repairs to be completed on a date of his choosing. He stated that he had lost money due to being off work and that the failure to complete the repairs was affecting his health. The resident noted that he has a disability, which he felt the landlord was not taking into account.
  2. The landlord responded by email on 10 April 2020. It confirmed records showed operatives attended and completed some re-tiling on 10 July 2018 but were unable to gain access for a follow-up appointment on 3 August 2018. A further order to repair bathroom tiling was raised on 14 March 2019 and an appointment was scheduled for 28 March 2019. The landlord apologised that, due to a technical error, its operative had not received the instruction, resulting in the missed appointment. The landlord stated that it would credit a payment of £20 compensation to the resident’s rent account, in recognition of this service failure. It also asked the resident to confirm his availability for the appointment to rebooked the following week.
  3. The resident suggested by email on 7 May 2019 that the repairs could be completed on 13 and 14 May 2019. The landlord responded on 9 May 2019, informing him that the earliest date the repairs could be completed was 3 and 4 June 2019. The resident confirmed that this would be acceptable. On 21 May 2019 the landlord apologised that the works had not been booked in as agreed and stated that it would confirm a new date that week. The resident responded, expressing his dissatisfaction with the landlord’s service, as he had made arrangements to allow access. He asked the landlord to ensure the agreed dates were adhered to, noting the impact of cancelled appointments. The landlord confirmed on 22 May 2019 that the works would commence on 3 June 2019.
  4. On 8 July 2019 the resident emailed the landlord stating that the works to his bathroom had still not been completed. The outstanding repairs included damaged walls, mould on the ceiling, paint damage to the dehumidifier, replacement of the shower guard and rail and issues with the plumbing. The resident also requested reimbursement of the cost of running an electric dehumidifier for a week. The resident noted that the landlord had indicated that it would respond regarding the outstanding works by 24 June 2019 but to date he had not been provided with an update. The resident stated that he had used 14 days of annual leave over the past year to deal with the situation. He requested that the matter be dealt with by the end of the week.
  5. The resident emailed again on 26 July 2019, as he had received no response. He indicated that the landlord was in breach of the tenancy agreement for failing to complete the repairs within a reasonable time. The landlord responded on 29 July 2019 suggesting someone visit the resident at his property to discuss his concerns. The resident declined this offer as an inspection had taken place on 17 July 2019 and this was not followed up. The resident again requested that the repairs be completed within the week.
  6. The resident also wrote to his Local Councillor on 29 July 2019, informing him of the issues. The resident’s Local Councillor emailed him on 30 August 2019 stating that he would ask someone to call about the outstanding repairs on 2 September 2019. The resident informed the landlord on 30 August 2019 that as the repairs were still outstanding he would be contacting this Service. The resident reported on 4 November 2019 that he had received no contact from the landlord. The resident’s Local Councillor chased the landlord that day. The resident confirmed on 11 November 2019 that he had still not received a response.
  7. This Service first contacted the landlord on 24 October 2019, requesting that it either provide a copy of the final complaint response or confirm the stage the complaint had reached. No response was received and so a follow-up email was sent on 22 November 2019. The landlord provided an update on the works to the resident’s bathroom on 27 November 2019 and a copy of its email to the resident on 10 April 2019, which constituted its stage 1 response. The landlord stated that communication had stopped following completion of tiling works on 11 June 2019. It noted that a second job had been raised to install a sliding arm bar and shower screen and to refix the shower curtain. The landlord stated that it would contact the resident to arrange an inspection of the property. The landlord noted that the £20 missed appointment compensation had not been applied to the resident’s rent account in April 2019 as agreed and confirmed that this would be paid without further delay.
  8. A surveyor attended the resident’s property on 11 December 2019. The resident states that the operative promised to return the following day but did not do so. The landlord has provided a copy of the contractor’s notes from this inspection, which record that the following repairs were required:
    1. A light fitting had been partially dismantled
    2. There was minor mould to the bathroom ceiling
    3. The basin waste was blocked
    4. Decoration to the walls following tiling had not been completed
    5. A shower curtain and rail had not been replaced
    6. No hot water to the bath tap
    7. A loose mixer tap to the kitchen sink
  9. The resident contacted this Service again for assistance with progressing the repairs on 18 December 2019. The resident was advised to continue to progress the repairs with the landlord and to keep a diary of any missed appointments.
  10. The resident reported to this Service on 26 May 2020 that the repairs to his bathroom had still not been completed. The resident stated that an appointment had been made following contact from this Service, however, this was missed and the contractors never attended. He noted that he was currently filling the bath from the basin taps, as the bath taps were not working. He had also confirmed that he had received no further response to his formal complaint. This Service then wrote to the landlord and asked it to provide a response by 16 June 2020. The resident updated this Service on 6 July 2020, noting that he had still not received a complaint response or any contact from the landlord. This Service sent a follow-up email to the landlord that day.
  11. The landlord responded to the resident at the review stage of its complaints process, on 3 August 2020. It noted that this Service had contacted it in May 2020 and a complaint was opened, however, its records showed that the complaint had not been investigated and no response had been issued. The landlord apologised for this service failure. The landlord also noted that a complaint had previously been logged in April 2019.
  12. The landlord stated that a number of repairs had been carried out at the property between March 2019 and December 2019. These included works to regrout and renew tiling, restore the electricity supply, renew a sliding arm bar and shower screen, restore water after a leak, repair the bathroom light fitting, repair the bathroom and kitchen taps, install a shower curtain and rail and to redecorate the bathroom walls and ceiling. Further works had been completed in June 2020 to check and make safe the electrics and to restore the cold water supply. The landlord’s technical services team had not completed an inspection and the landlord advised that it was currently only completing emergency repairs, due to the restrictions imposed as a result of the Coronavirus pandemic.
  13. The landlord partially upheld the complaint, due to its poor complaints handling. It stated that there were ‘no records of any formal complaints handling since April 2019’. The landlord stated in respect of the repairs that, ‘a number of repairs have been raised and completed and all I can do at this stage is ask you to provide me photographic evidence of the condition of your property’ to determine whether an emergency inspection was required.
  14. The resident states that he did not receive the landlord’s final response, and so a copy was provided by this Service on 23 November 2020. The resident then referred his complaint to this Service.

Assessment and findings

Tenancy Agreement, Policies and Procedures

  1. The resident’s Tenancy Terms & Conditions states at paragraphs 4a and 4b that the landlord will maintain, ‘the structure, outside and shared areas of your home’ and ‘the installations for supplying water, gas, electricity and sanitation’. The resident is obliged to report any necessary repairs and to permit access for the landlord’s operatives to attend to carry them out, under paragraphs 4g and 4h. Paragraph 4k states that the resident will be responsible for ‘minor repairs’ such as unblocking sinks and replacing tap washers.
  2. The landlord has provided a link to its current Repairs Policy, which clarifies that it is responsible for repairs to water service pipes, blocked sinks and handbasin waste pipes, taps, floor tiles where fitted by the landlord, and showers or baths. The Repairs Policy does not provide timescales for completing repairs, in the absence of which, the landlord would be expected to complete repairs within a reasonable timeframe.
  3. The landlord has also provided a link to its Complaints Process. The landlord operates a 2 stage complaints process and will look to resolve issues informally before carrying out a formal investigation. If the complaint cannot be resolved, a written response will be provided within 20 working days. Complainants may request a review of the landlord’s decision if they are dissatisfied with the stage 1 response. The landlord’s Complaints Process does not provide a target timescale for providing a response at the review stage.

Assessment and Findings – Repairs

  1. According to the landlord’s repairs record, jobs were raised to regrout and renew tiling in May 2018, July 2018 and March 2019, however, it appears from the landlord’s stage 1 complaint response of 10 April 2019 that some of this work had not been completed. The landlord states that works were not completed in 2018 due to the resident’s refusal to allow access and that an appointment was missed in March 2019 as a result of an internal error.
  2. The resident’s complaint of 28 March 2019 did not describe the extent of the works to his bathroom that remained outstanding, however, in his email of 8 July 2019 the resident stated that this included damaged walls, mould on the ceiling, paint damage to the dehumidifier, replacement of the shower guard and rail and issues with the plumbing. These works are not recorded in the landlord’s repairs record, indicating that they were not raised by the landlord at this time. According to the landlord’s repairs record, there have been a number of jobs raised to re-tile, re–grout and address leaks since May 2018, however, repairs to the light fitting, bath taps, shower curtain and rail were not logged until 19 December 2019. The landlord also informed this Service in November 2019 that a job had been raised to install a shower screen and sliding arm bar.
  3. The accounts of the parties differ as to when operatives attended and what works have been completed since the formal complaint. The landlord has stated that the bathroom re-tiling and re-grouting was completed on 11 July 2019 and that a job to renew the shower curtain and rail and repair the taps was cancelled on 19 December 2019 as the resident would not allow access. It also states that the redecoration to the walls and ceiling was completed on 13 January 2020, the bathroom light fitting was repaired on 6 July 2020, water supply issues were addressed on 4 July 2020 and the taps were repaired on 6 July 2020. The resident states that the re-grouting was never completed and so he paid to have this done himself. He also states that he had to paint and repair the bathroom ceiling. The resident also reported to this Service in May 2020 that he was still without hot water to the bathroom tap, as identified at the landlord’s inspection of 11 December 2019.
  4. The email correspondence between the parties from 28 March 2019 to 11 November 2019 raises concerns about the landlord’s record keeping and communication with the resident regarding the repairs. The landlord informed the resident by email on 9 May 2019 that works to his bathroom would be completed on 3 and 4 June 2019. This indicates that it was aware of outstanding repairs. No evidence has been provided to this investigation indicating that this job was raised as agreed and there are no records of any works being completed on this date. The landlord has also stated that operatives attended and completed plumbing and tiling work on 10 and 11 June 2019 and that regrouting was completed on 11 July 2019, however, this is not reflected in its repairs records or in correspondence with the resident.
  5. There is no evidence that the landlord provided a response to the resident’s email of 8 July 2019. Following communication with the resident’s Local Councillor regarding the landlord’s failure to complete the repairs, which the landlord was copied into, it offered to carry out an inspection to assess any outstanding works. This was refused by the resident, who stated that an inspection had been completed on 17 July 2019 but had not been followed up. Again, there is no evidence of this inspection or its outcome in the landlord’s records. The landlord did not respond to make clear its position on whether it considered all works previously raised had been completed and it did not comment on the outcome of the inspection that allegedly took place on 17 July 2019.
  6. The landlord’s repairs record provided to this investigation evidences when jobs were raised and their target dates and also shows whether a job was closed or cancelled. It does not, however, record the dates of any appointments, notes of when operatives could not gain access, or whether a job was successfully completed. No correspondence between the parties has been provided indicating that the landlord was unable to gain access to complete repairs. In the absence of contemporaneous records of the landlord’s attempts to complete the repairs, or that the resident refused to provide access, the Ombudsman cannot conclude either that the landlord made reasonable efforts to investigate what works were required or to complete works within a reasonable timeframe. There is also no evidence that the resident’s refusal to allow access contributed to the delay, other than the landlord’s account to this Service following notification of this investigation.
  7. The landlord failed to communicate effectively with the resident about the outstanding repairs following his complaint of 28 March 2019. It ignored correspondence and only provided a response following the involvement of the resident’s Local Councillor or this Service. The landlord’s repairs records do not contain contemporaneous evidence of failed or completed appointments, and it has failed to make clear its position regarding its responsibility for any outstanding repairs.
  8. Following further contact from this Service in November 2019, the landlord completed an inspection of the property on 11 December 2019 and raised orders for repairs to the taps, light fitting, shower curtain and rail on 19 December 2019. At that point in time, a further leak had occurred, which it is noted may have resulted in additional disrepair, although several of these repairs had already been reported in the resident’s email of 8 July 2019, as set out at paragraph 23 above.
  9. There were further delays in completing these works, which the landlord has attributed to an initial refusal by the resident to arrange an appointment, resulting in the job being cancelled. No evidence to support the landlord’s statement that the resident refused access, in the form of notes or entries made on the landlord’s system at the time, have been provided to this Service. Whilst the Ombudsman recognises the impact that the Coronavirus pandemic had on the landlord’s ability to complete non-urgent repairs following lockdown on 23 March 2019, however, there is no evidence that the landlord took reasonable steps to progress the repairs that it was responsible for between 19 December 2019 and that date, or to write to the resident reminding him of his obligation to provide access. There is also no evidence that it kept the resident updated about any delays caused by the Coronavirus pandemic.
  10. The Ombudsman has been unable to conclusively determine whether the repairs to the resident’s property were completed within a reasonable timeframe, due to the incomplete and inadequate records provided by the landlord. The Ombudsman will not accept the account of one party over another and, in the absence of supporting documentary evidence, cannot conclude that the landlord has met its obligations to the resident under the tenancy agreement and its repairs policy. The Ombudsman therefore concludes that there was service failure by the landlord in its handling of the repairs to the resident’s property due to its poor record keeping and poor communication with the resident.

 

 

Assessment and Findings – Complaints Handling

  1. The landlord’s account of events, as provided in the stage 1 response to the resident on 10 April 2019, stated that a contractor had attended the property and completed some works on 10 July 2018 but had been unable to gain access to finish the job on 3 August 2018. The landlord also acknowledged a missed appointment on 28 March 2019 and offered the resident £20 compensation. The landlord identified in November 2019 that this was not credited to the resident’s rent account as promised in April 2019. The landlord committed to credit this without further delay. It is understood that this has now been actioned.
  2. The resident states that he immediately requested the escalation of his complaint on receipt of the stage 1 response of 10 April 2019, although no documentary evidence of this has been provided to this investigation. It was, however, evident from his subsequent correspondence in July 2020 that he remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s repairs service, as he stated that the works had not been completed. The Ombudsman notes that the Stage 1 response of 10 April 2019 did not provide details of how to escalate the complaint, nor did the landlord proactively enquire whether the resident wished to escalate his complaint on receipt of his emails in July 2020.
  3. Following referral of the complaint to this Service, the Ombudsman attempted to contact the landlord on 2 occasions in October 2019 and November 2019 to progress the resident’s complaint. The landlord informed this Service in November 2019 that it would look to progress the repairs with the resident and an inspection took place on 11 December 2019. At this time, it may also have been appropriate to escalate the resident’s complaint and provide a review response, as it was clear that he remained dissatisfied. The landlord failed to take proactive steps to deal with the resident’s complaint, which may have helped to ensure that the repairs issues were resolved at an earlier stage.
  4. This Service contacted the landlord again in May 2020 after being informed that the repairs identified in December 2019 remained outstanding. It is stated that some repairs to the light fitting, water supply and taps were then progressed in July 2020, some 7 months after they were first identified during the inspection of December 2019. The landlord has since stated that the resident would not allow access to complete the works following the inspection, however, no evidence has been provided of appointments arranged, access being refused, or further attempts to complete the outstanding works or to contact the resident to remind him of his obligation to provide access. It is also noted that the resident’s refusal to allow access was not referred to in the stage 2 response.
  5. The stage 2 response did not describe the investigation the landlord had conducted into the resident’s complaint beyond reviewing its complaint records, which, as stated previously, do not appear to accurately reflect when works were completed. The complaint response did acknowledge the poor complaint handling and failure to escalate the complaint following contact from this Service in May 2020, however, the landlord did not offer compensation, which would have been appropriate given the length of the delay.
  6. The Ombudsman considers that there was maladministration by the landlord in its complaints handling. The landlord’s stage 1 response did not make clear that it was a formal complaint response, or provide information on how to escalate the complaint. There was an unacceptable delay in the landlord providing a stage 2 response following this Service’s involvement and no update was provided to the resident or to this Service explaining the delay. The landlord’s stage 2 response did not accurately identify which repairs had been completed and when and made no references to aborted appointments as a result of the resident’s refusal to provide access, which the landlord has since stated to this investigation.
  7. Finally, it is noted that the resident stated in his complaint that he has a disability that he felt the landlord was not taking into account. The Ombudsman notes that the landlord’s files show no vulnerabilities or disabilities recorded for the resident. The Ombudsman recommends that the landlord contact the resident to discuss his situation and ensures that its records are updated accordingly.

Determination (decision)

  1. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of repairs to the resident’s bathroom.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration in the landlord’s complaints handling.

Reasons

  1. There was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the repairs to the resident’s bathroom due to its poor communication with the resident regarding the repairs and its poor record keeping. There is no evidence that the landlord has taken adequate steps to investigate and complete repairs within a reasonable timeframe, or to keep the resident updated on its position or the reason for any delays.
  2. The Ombudsman considers that there was maladministration in the landlord’s complaints handling due to its failure to evidence that it had fully investigated the issues raised, to identify its poor communication regarding the repairs and to provide a timely response.

 

Orders

  1. Within 28 days of the date of this report, the landlord is ordered to:
    1. Pay the resident £200 in recognition of its poor communication and record keeping in relation to repairs.
    2. Pay the resident £100 in recognition of its poor complaints handling.
    3. Contact the resident to arrange an inspection of his bathroom to determine whether any repairs remain outstanding and arrange for these to be completed within 20 days of the date of the inspection.
    4. Review its record keeping processes in relation to repairs to ensure that full notes are kept, including details of the date a repair was first reported, the outcome of any inspections, details of any completed appointments and a note of any access refusals.
    5. Review its complaints handling processes and provide training to staff to ensure that complaint responses are detailed and accurate, and provide information on how to escalate the complaint to the next stage. The landlord should refer to the information contained in this Service’s Complaints Handling Code.

Recommendations

  1. It is recommended that the landlord:
    1. Contact the resident to discuss any disabilities or vulnerabilities that should be recorded on its files and update its records accordingly.