Wandsworth Council (202115911)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202115911

Wandsworth Council

29 August 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

1. The resident’s complaint was about:
   1. The landlord’s consideration of the resident’s housing needs and the suitability of her current accommodation and the decision to remove the resident from the housing list for three years.
   2. The condition of the property when it was let to her.
   3. The landlord’s handling of noise reports by neighbours.
   4. The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of the kitchen layout and condition of the bathroom and WC walls (the bathroom works).
   5. The landlord’s handling of works and repairs in the resident’s property.
      1. The electrics.
      2. The intercom door entry system.
   6. The landlord’s response to resident’s reports about the heating and hot water system.
   7. The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of flooding from her toilet and her request for compensation for damaged belongings.
   8. The landlord’s response to her reports of landlord staff conduct.
   9. The Ombudsman has considered the landlord’s complaint handling.
   10. The Ombudsman has considered the landlord’s record keeping.

Jurisdiction

2. 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.
3. After carefully considering all the evidence, in accordance with paragraph 42(k) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the following aspect of the complaint is outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.
   1. The landlord’s consideration of the resident’s housing needs and the suitability of her current accommodation and the decision to remove the resident from the housing list for three years.
4. This is because paragraph 42(k) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, The Housing Ombudsman Scheme (housing-ombudsman.org.uk) which gives the Ombudsman his investigatory powers, states as follows:
   1. The Ombudsman may not consider complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, concern matters which fall properly within the jurisdiction of another Ombudsman, regulator or complaint-handling body.
5. The allocation and suitability of the property and the housing register is a matter for the local authority’s duties in relation to the provisions of housing and not housing management, such as ASB and disrepair. The Memorandum of Understanding between the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman (LGSCO) Memorandum of Understanding – Housing Ombudsman (housing-ombudsman.org.uk) set out that the LGSCO investigates complaints regarding housing allocations under Part 6 and Part 7 of the Housing Act 1996 including rehousing under the housing register and suitability.

Background and summary of events

6. The resident occupied her ground floor flat under a secure tenancy which began on 24 June 2019. She lived there together with her teenage son and daughter. It was a two-bedroom flat. The landlord had recorded vulnerabilities for the family. The resident had a diagnosis of chronic asthma, her daughter of anxiety, and that her son had cognitive issues.

Legal and policy framework

7. The landlord has an obligation to keep the structure and exterior of the resident’s property in repair, keep the installations in the property for gas, electricity, and water supplies, heating and hot water, in good repair and working order. It is also responsible for drains, basins, sinks, baths, and toilets.
8. Its anti-social behaviour (ASB) policy includes noise nuisance as ASB.
9. The landlord’s complaints procedure sets out a response time of 10 working days at Stage one and 20 days at Stage two. It could extend the response time up to 10 working days but the landlord would inform the resident why.
10. Gas safety is regulated by statute (The Gas Safety (Installation and Use) Regulations 1998). Landlords have a duty to arrange an inspection of the gas boiler prior to letting and annually thereafter. Inspections must be carried out by a registered qualified engineer and demonstrate that the appliance is safe while functioning. A Gas Safety Certificate is not the same as a boiler service in terms of functioning checks.
11. The Decent Homes Standard 2006, which are governmental guidelines applied to social housing introduced by the UK government, sets out as follows:
    1. A home would not meet the standard where it did not meet a number of criteria, only one of which was that the kitchen should have adequate space and layout. A kitchen failing in that respect would be one that was too small to contain all the required items (sink, cupboards cooker space, worktops etc…), appropriate to the size of the dwelling.
    2. However, landlords may work to different detailed standards. There may be factors which may make the improvements required to meet the Decent Homes standards challenging, or impossible, including factors such as physical or planning restrictions. Where such limiting factors occur, the property should be assessed to determine the most satisfactory course of action, in consultation with the relevant body or agency, so as to determine the best solution. The outcome may determine that some improvements may be possible even if all are not. A dwelling would not fail this criterion, where it is impossible to make the required improvements to components for physical or planning reasons.

The complaint

12. On 28 February 2021, the resident made a complaint, which the landlord logged, as follows:
    1. The resident had moved in following an emergency transfer following a distressing event suffered by her daughter. She described the household’s circumstances and experiences. Her boiler had broken down several times and she had suffered eight months of intermittent heating and hot water due to “leaking carbon monoxide”. She was distressed by not being able to wash up and by observations by contractors blaming her for food in the pipes, and the effect on her health. She considered that the boiler was faulty from the outset of the tenancy and the property should not have been let to her. The issue was resolved when a contractor identified the lack of hole in the waste pipe to release the overflow.
    2. The contractor identified that all the radiators required replacing. They were 30 years old and with no bleed facility that she could operate. She had been unable to use one of the bedrooms. When it was replaced, the wrong radiator was delivered. The old radiator was left in the flat. It was eventually replaced which had only improved heating a little. Several of the radiators directed the heating upwards due to its design, the front room heater had broken down several times. Two of them worked either intermittently or not at all. There was no heating in the kitchen and toilet.
    3. She had reported a “flood” in May 2020 from the toilet as result of which they lost 90% of their belongings. It took over six hours for a plumber to attend. The operative plunged the toilet which made matters worse. The family had to sleep in one room. The landlord did not follow this up. There was water damage to the walls, skirting board, and bath panel. Cupboards were mouldy. She considered the flat required an industrial clean.
    4. The plastering in the toilet and bathroom was poor, it flaked and was damp.
    5. The resident had reported that the kitchen worktops were inadequate. She had chased this several times. The landlord had authorised works in November 2019. She had insufficient room to cook and store kitchen appliances.
    6. The kitchen was “still out of power” due to the inadequacy of a socket. She was concerned it was dangerous.
    7. Her intercom did not function. This had been since she moved in. The mal-functioning triggered her daughter’s panic attacks.
    8. There were bins directly outside her front door. Neighbours threw rubbish down and urinated in the area. The rubbish would pile up high. There was minimal security.
    9. A neighbour complained about their music. She considered that he objected to her music for cultural reasons.
    10. She referred to racial inequalities in housing.
13. The landlord logged the complaint the same day. The landlord made a detailed note of its findings dated 4 March 2021. On 5 March 2021, it contacted the resident, as set out in this report, but did not respond formally in writing.
14. The resident made a complaint on 11 August 2021. She wanted to add it to her previous complaint (which reference number she cited) as follows:
    1. She thanked for contractor for fitting a new boiler on 6 April 2021. She said the previous boiler was 19 years old. Given the issue with the condenser hole, it was not in good condition on letting. She wanted compensation for the costs of electric heaters.
    2. The contractor had repaired all the radiators on 5 April 2021. She requested a temperature gauge in the hallway radiator.
    3. The works to the electrics had been carried out.
    4. She stated that a further “flood” had occurred in May 2021. The works agreed on 7 June 2021 were outstanding, a new waste pipe and WC pan were to be fitted, plastering works and worktops were outstanding. However, the contractor was due to attend 18 August 2021.
15. On 2 September 2021, the landlord replied with its Stage 1 response as follows:
    1. The resident reported in October 2019 that some radiators were not working effectively. Engineers attended and repaired the fault and restored the heating and hot water in response to several further reports received during 2020 for no heating and hot water. On each occasion, engineers attended and repaired the fault and restored the heating and hot water. A new boiler and radiators were installed in March 2021. The resident confirmed on 19 August 2021 that the heating was working. The resident requested a new thermostatic radiator valve to the hallway radiator, but it was not deemed to be necessary due to the position of the room thermostat. The boiler was tested prior to the property being let. The landlord did not replace boilers simply because they were old. When repairs proved ineffective, a new boiler was installed. While the complaint was not upheld, it offered £250 in recognition of the inconvenience caused due to the frequent reports. It would make payment of £250 once she confirmed that it had settled the matter.
    2. The resident had reported that the kitchen worktops were insufficient in December 2019. Due to the non-urgent nature of the request and the Covid-19 pandemic, the inspection did not take place. A further inspection request was raised in September 2020, following which an order was issued on 21 October 2020 to fit two double wall units and a single wall unit and to fit a L-shaped worktop, to enable her to fit her freezer into the kitchen. The contractors reported back on 20 January 2021 that they were unable to do the work because she was unhappy with the extent of the work ordered and wanted all the kitchen units replaced. The resident submitted photographs of the kitchen and bathroom, in March 2021. It was agreed an inspection was necessary to assess the property further. Due to staffing issues during the pandemic where priorities were continuously being reassessed, an inspection was undertaken on 7 June 2021 and a repair order raised to fit the extra worktop and replace the two single wall units with one double wall unit, re-plaster the walls and ceiling in the toilet and re-plaster the walls in the bathroom, replace the bath panel, and redecorate.The kitchen works were completed on 19 August 2021. The contractor left a message on 27 August 2021 to arrange an appointment for the bathroom works.The delays were due to the pandemic and resulting staff shortages and sickness and was not due to the landlord, therefore it did not uphold her complaint.
    3. The resident reported a flooding incident in June 2020. An emergency plumber attended and cleared a blockage to the toilet. No follow up works were recorded as being necessary. The report noted there was water covering the hall floor and penetrating one of the bedrooms. There were no other records of further incidents and none on 7 June 2021.
    4. An order was issued in October 2020 to investigate the cause of the lights tripping the electrics. The contractor reported this was due to the type of bulbs being used and whilst on site, he replaced them with better quality ones. An order was also raised to attend to a defective socket in the kitchen in April 2021. There were no further issues with the electrics.
    5. The resident reported a defective intercom buzzer in February 2020 and an engineer attended and repaired the handset. A further order was raised in March 2021. However, this job was closed following several unsuccessful attempts to contact her. Another order has been issued with a target completion date of 27 August 2021. It considered that the intercom was repaired when access was provided.
    6. There have been several reports alleging noise nuisance from her property and she had made similar complaints about neighbours. It was unable to identify which neighbour had placed handwritten notes through neighbours’ doors encouraging them to report her to the landlord.
    7. The resident had raised an issue about a conversation between the surveyor who had attended in September or October 2020. The landlord stated that the member of staff had left the employment so the landlord was unable to investigate her complaint about him “further”.
    8. It apologised for the delay in getting the repair issues the landlord’s surveyor who had inspected in October 2020 dealt with.
    9. The officer had forwarded her complaint to the complaints team but it was “unfortunate” that she did not receive a response.
    10. While “emotional distress suffered was regrettable”, it did not agree the property was unfit for human habitation or had been let in a poor condition.
    11. It stated that its learning consisted of:
        1. It continued to strive to meet its targets and aims to provide an excellent service.
        2. The usual high level of service has been compromised during this challenging period and some delays had inevitably occurred in undertaking repairs to the property.
        3. Residents need to appreciate the difficult climate the landlord had been operating in which had and continued to result in some delays to its service.
        4. It was sorry for the distress this had caused her and her family.
16. The resident made a third complaint on 9 October 2021 which the landlord logged. She asked that it be added to the second complaint.
    1. The intercom was still faulty.
    2. She repeated her request for compensation regarding the boiler.
    3. The bath panel and decorative works were still outstanding and the toilet was in disrepair.
    4. The landlord’s report did not reflect the damage to her possessions and she had videos to substantiate this. She wanted £2,500 in compensation.
17. On 17 November 2021, the landlord wrote with its Stage 2 response as follows. It referred to the email 9 October 2021.
    1. Following unsuccessful attempts, including a letter of 31 August 2021, to arrange an appointment regarding her report of a faulty intercom, the job order was closed. On receipt of her Stage 2 complaint, the engineer attended on 18 October 2021 and replaced the handset.
    2. Repairs to the property were subject to unavoidable delays due to the Covid-19 pandemic.
    3. The works to her kitchen were completed on 19 August 2021. She had “complained” that the contractor had attended without notice and refused access on 25 October 2021. The next available date was 30 November 2021.
    4. Problems with the heating started seven months after the commencement of her tenancy. The heating engineers had repaired faults as soon as they were reported.
    5. She had not raised any new issues regarding at Stage 2.

Chronology

Pre–letting works and condition

18. According to the property repair records, a replacement boiler had been fitted on 27 January 2016.
19. According to an email 26 February 2019, major works (asbestos and plastering) were to be carried out.
20. The landlord’s “vacant property action sheet” dated 26 February 2019 noted including as follows:
    1. A rewire and “gas work” was marked as completed on 19 April 2021. The actions such as gas safety, window check, and electrical certificate were marked as a pass.
    2. The rooms were marked on 26 April 20219 as clean.
    3. Kitchen wall and sink units tiles, taps, floor and silicon sealer were to be replaced. The standard was two standard size base units and three wall units.
    4. The WC and bedroom floors were to be replaced.
    5. The bathroom sealer, floor, bath taps and panel were to be replaced.
    6. The repair records confirmed that the electrical works had been carried out.
21. The Gas Safety Certificate dated 2 March 2019 stated that the boiler and gas supply was safe to use. The pipework visual inspection was satisfactory.
22. There was also a satisfactory electrical installation certificate dated 9 April 2019, which showed that circuits were rewired.
23. The landlord provided photographs dated 10 April 2019. While it is limited what the Ombudsman deduces from photographs, they showed a clean and sealed bath panel and a clean and tidy property.
24. The resident and her family moved into the property on 24 June 2019.

Noise reports

25. On 4, 6 and 12 May 2020, 23 June 2020, 5 July 2020 (afternoon), 22 November 2020 the resident reported banging, music, children playing, and voices from a neighbouring property. The local authority’s reports of its attendances, which were carried out not long after the reports were made, stated no noise was heard and, on each occasion, wrote to the resident that it would take no action.
26. Neighbours had made noise reports on 11,29 April 2020, 3 and 5 May 2020, 15 June 2020, 21 July 2020, 4 August 2020, 25 and 28 and 30 December 2020, New Year’s Eve and 24 January 2023. The local authority’s report stated that no noise was heard and, on two occasions, was not deemed to be loud. On some occasions, the music stopped but was reported in any event. The noise report of 3 May 2020 stated that noise was heard and a warning letter was sent to the resident. The local authority’s report in another instance, it took no action as the noise was moderated at the local authority’s request.
27. The landlord spoke to the resident on 4 March 2021. She reported that other neighbours in the block had received a handwritten card suggesting neighbours make noise reports to the local authority. The landlord informed the resident that it was not possible to identify who had posted the note. She suggested that the landlord should ask the neighbours who had made the noise reports.

Kitchen layout and bathroom works

28. On 6 December 2019, the resident reported that the worktops were “inadequate”.
29. The Government issued guidance to stop non-essential contact on 16 March 2020. Lockdown began on 26 March 2020 during which time landlords were permitted to carry out only emergency repairs.
30. Following the resident’s complaint, the landlord asked the resident for photographs, which she provided on 25 March 2020. From the parties’ photographs, it appears there was two single base units, and a narrow worktop either side of the cooker. The landlord replied on 8 April 2020 that repairs were being prioritised by emergency due to Government Regulations in relation to the then Covid 19 pandemic and the requirement for social distancing. It would review the request once access was allowed.
31. Lockdown ended and restrictions were eased on 10 May 2020.
32. On 20 May 2020, the resident’s social worker chasedthe landlord for an update. The worktops were only “a few centimetres deep” so she put the pots and pans on the floor when cooking. The landlord did not deem this to be urgent. The “repair” would be carried out when the landlord “resumed service”.
33. Fresh restrictions were introduced on 14 September 2020. There was a four-week lockdown on 5 November 2020.
34. The resident’s social worker chased again on 16 September 2020. The resident also reported that she could not fit her fridge into the kitchen. An inspection was raised on 25 September 2020.
35. According to the complaint correspondence an inspection took place on 20 October 2020. According to the repair records, works to replace the worktop andkitchen units were raised on 21 October 2020.
36. A fresh lockdown began on 6 January 2021 and was slowly eased over the next months from the end of February 2021 onwards.
37. According to an internal email of 5 March 2021, the resident refused the kitchen units on 20 January 2021 as there was a dispute about the works to be carried out.
38. The landlord called the resident on 4 March 2021, that the job was not completed as she wanted all the units replaced on 20 January 2021. She denied that was the case. It wrote to the resident requesting photographs of the walls in the property and of the kitchen so as to investigate the complaint without the need of an inspection, given the social distancing restrictions in operation.
39. Again, it is limited what can be determined from photographs, however the photographs showed two narrow worktops, allowing a kettle and the width of a cereal pack across the width of one worktop, and the width of three tins (approximately) of the other.
40. On 15 March 2021, the landlord considered the resident’s photographs. It noted peeling on both sides of WC due to “splash”. It noted that the wall could have been painted “better”. The kitchen was “in a very good condition” and had as many units as could be fitted safely. The property appeared to be in good decorative order. It would inspect in approximately the following 10 days.
41. An inspection was carried out on 7 June 2021. The landlord agreed to replace 2 single units with a double unit, add a worktop, plaster and paint the WC and bathroom, and fit a new bath panel. According to the repair records and works order, the job was raised on 7 June 2021, and according to the contractor on 26 October 2021, it inspected the property on 6 July 2021. It identified additional works. It had difficulty with staffing.
42. On 17 August 2021 the landlord chased the contractor for the works raised on 7 June 2021 as a result of the resident’s complaint and changed contractors. According to the parties’ email correspondence, it was not disputed that the works to the kitchen were carried out on 18 August 2021. The contractor informed the landlord on 23 August 2021 that it would contact the resident for the bathroom works.
43. The landlord wrote to the contractors on 25 October 2021 that the resident reported that the contactors had “cold called” and stated he was going “to scrape off some flaking paint”. The landlord reminded the contractor the job was to plaster and redecorate. It asked the contractor to apologise and arrange an appointment as soon as possible “as it was a disrepair case.” In response, the contractor wrote on 26 October 2021 that it had had difficulties contacting the resident to arrange to attend on 31 August 2021 and the resident did not contact it back until 17 September 2021. The earliest date for the repairs after that was 25 October 2021.
44. According to further email exchanges at the end of October 2021, a further appointment was the agreed for 30 November 2021 as the resident was not available on 17 November 2021.
45. According to email correspondence the post inspection was due to take place in the first week of December 2021. It arranged to attend on 30 December 2021.
46. According to the repair records, the landlord fitted a new bath panel on 22 February 2022.
47. On 15 March 2022, a job with a target date of 5 April 2022 was raised of an inspection of the bathroom and kitchen works.
48. The investigation noted that the repair records stated:
    1. Works to replace worktops were raised on 21 October 2020 and carried out on 11 November 2020.
    2. A job to fit a L-shaped top in order to accommodate a freezer, fit a double and a single wall unit was raised on 21 October 2020 and 20 January 2021 and marked as completed.
    3. A job to replace worktops was raised on 18 March 2022 and carried out on 25 February 2022.

The electrics

49. According to the repair records, a job to investigate the cause of electrics tripping in the property was raised on 19 October 2020 and marked as completed on 21 October 2020. The contractor concluded the tripping was due to the type of lightbulbs in use, which it replaced.
50. According to the repair records and emails, on 5 March 2021 the landlord raised a job to replace a socket in the kitchen and rectify faulty circuits which was fitted on 15 March 2021. According to the landlord’s internal summary report of 5 March 2021, this was following a discussion with the resident the previous day.

The intercom

51. On 2 March 2021, the resident reported that her intercom was still faulty. She asked it to be treated as an urgent job as it affected her daughter’s panic attacks. It had previously been in disrepair and was “not fit for purpose”. She had mentioned this to the landlord’s surveyor who inspected on 20 October 2020. The landlord raised the job on the same day and asked it be monitored to completion as a “high profile“ case.
52. According to the contractor’s repairs history, jobs to repair the intercom were raised in July 2019, February 2020, March 2021, two in June 2021, August and on 13 October 2021, and the handset was replaced on 3 November 2021. The job sheets repairs log did not indicate what action was taken except there was a job sheet showing the final repair.

The boiler and heating system

53. According to the landlord’s repair records, the resident made approximately 20 reports of the boiler failing, lack of hot water and heating between 19 October 2019 and 8 December 2020. The landlord identified low pressure. It bled the radiators. On 23 October 2020, it identified and repaired a hole had not been cut into the waste. On further occasions it identified that a bedroom radiator needed replacing which it did on 16 November 2020, a few days later. On 12 November 2020, a tap had been left on because it was very stiff. On 3 December 2020, it identified that a pump required replacing which was done on 8 December 2020.
54. On 5 March 2021, the landlord raised a job to supply and fit 2-10 radiator valves and completed it on 9 March 2021. A radiator was replaced. According to the resident’s complaint 11 August 2021, the radiators were fitted on 5 April 2021 and a new boiler was installed on 6 April 2021. She stated that she was satisfied with the works aside from her request for a temperature gauge.

The WC and flooding

55. There had been a flooding on 6 June 2020, according to the landlord’s internal summary report of 4 March 2021. An emergency plumber attended and cleared a blocked toilet inside the property. There was no record of any necessary follow up works. According to the landlord’s internal notes of 4 March 2021, the report was not forwarded which it thought could be the reason why the landlord did not follow up the issue. The notes stated that it was not clear from the plumber’s notes what the cause of the flooding was and nor was it clear from the records whether the resident made any follow-on calls regarding her possessions. It stated that she would have been told to claim on her contents insurance.
56. According to the landlord’s repair records, a job was raised on 20 October 2020 to repair a leak on the waste/soil pipe and secure loose pipes and, on 21 October 2020, to install a new cistern and renew or replace the overflow. The works were marked as completed on 11 November 2020.
57. On 20 January 2021, a job was raised to trace and repair a leak in the soil pipe. It stated it was completed 11 November 2020 (sic). A similar job was raised on 13 December 2021 and marked as completed on 2 December 2021(sic).
58. On 25 November 2021, the resident’s social worker made observations as follows:
    1. There was water damage visible on the bath panel and a bedroom chest of drawers.
    2. The walls and ceilings of the bathroom and WC were damaged.
    3. A large hole was left where a new pipe had been installed.
    4. There was a fly infestation due to the bins outside.
59. The landlord replied on the same day that it would book an inspection.
60. A job to overhaul and repair the WC cistern was raised and marked as complete on 2 December 2021.
61. According to the repair records, a job to resecure the sanitary fittings with screws and repoint was raised on 18 March 2022 and completed on 25 February 2022 (sic).

Staff complaint

62. According to the complaint response, the staff member the resident made a complaint about attended the property in October 2020. The resident wrote to him on 16 February 2021 stating that he had said that she should be grateful for what the landlord was doing. She requested a note of what was discussed at the meeting.
63. According to the internal investigation note of 4 March 2021, the officer no longer worked for the landlord and there were no detailed notes of the conversation.

Assessment and findings

The condition of the property when it was let to her.

64. There was no evidence that the property was in an unsatisfactory condition when it was let to the resident. The electrics and the boiler had been inspected. The photographs and void check sheet showed the property to be in a clean and finished condition. The only issues were the quality of the painting in the bathroom and WC subsequently noted by the landlord, although the resident herself ascribed this to the leak in the toilet. While the landlord did not provide records that the intended works were carried out, but there was no evidence to the contrary. There was no complaint about the floor, kitchen tiles, taps and sealers. In the circumstances, the Ombudsman considers that there was no service failure in relation to the condition of the property as let. However, there was no evidence that a gas engineer attended to carry out service checks on the boiler while the property was empty and the Ombudsman will make a recommendation in that regard.

The landlord’s handling of noise reports by neighbours.

65. While the Ombudsman would expect the landlord to take any allegations of racism seriously, there was no evidence from the reports that the reasons for the neighbours’ complaints were due to “cultural reasons”. There was no reference to the type of music, only of it starting and stopping. In the circumstances, it would have been difficult for the landlord to have taken action in that respect. The resident wanted the landlord to investigate the source of the card dropped through neighbours’ doors. While the landlord may not have necessarily shared the outcome, there was no evidence that the landlord responded to the resident’s request, for example by making enquiries or explaining what it would or would not do. The evidence showed that the response to the noise complaints by the landlord (whether by its environmental team or its housing team) was even-handed. Given no reports from any of the parties were frequent, and the local authority sent only one warning letter to the resident, the Ombudsman does not consider the impact of the landlord’s lack of response was significant. In the circumstances, the Ombudsman does not find service failure in its response.

Kitchen layout and bathroom works.

66. It was reasonable of the landlord to agree to address the layout of the kitchen. It was not disputed, and the photographic evidence bears out, that the kitchen layout was impractical. It also appeared that the kitchen was very small and therefore limited as to potential options and did not allow for the standard number and size of units and worktops. While the landlord did not have a legal obligation to carry out works or that the property would fail to meet the Decent Homes Standard on the basis of the kitchen alone, it did have a duty to assess and consult about what could be done to improve the layout. The layout of the kitchen was impacting on the resident and it was reasonable of the landlord to take this into account.
67. It was inappropriate of the landlord to attribute the entire period of the delay to the pandemic. While the issue would not be classed as urgent works, there was no satisfactory explanation why the landlord did not inspect the property prior to the onset of the pandemic. While lockdown lifted for a period in 2020, the Ombudsman is aware that lockdown and the pandemic created a number of further challenges to landlord across the sector, including backlogs, staff shortages and shortages of materials, which went long into 2021. However, the landlord could have been proactive in updating the resident.
68. There was a dispute whether the resident refused the works on 20 January 2021. There was no contemporaneous record, only a report from the repairs team in the landlord’s internal investigation of 4 March 2021. The Ombudsman is unable to draw a definitive conclusion about the dispute, given the lack of evidence but will consider it in the overall context of the timescales.
69. The evidence indicated that the issue only reignited after the resident made a complaint. However, it was reasonable of the landlord to reconsider the matter at that time and, given the pandemic, to consider photographs. While the landlord did not consider the works as urgent, it anticipated carrying out an inspectionin the following 10 days. There was then an unexplained delay before the landlord inspected on 7 June 2021. It was not clear why a second inspection was required, an inspection having taken place in October 2020 and a works order raised. This may have been due to the lack of proper record keeping. It then took a further two and a half months to carry out the works. While the contractor later explained to the landlord that it had been understaffed and there were further works. Again, this was not explained to the resident. This also showed a lack of monitoring at that stage. As a result, the resident, evidently frustrated, made a further complaint.
70. The Ombudsman does not attribute blame to the landlord for the delay from August to 30 November 2021. There was a dispute about the attendance on 25 October 2021. The resident stated that the contractor attended unannounced, while the contractor asserted that it had arranged an appointment on 25 October 2021. There was no explanation of what occurred on 30 November 2021 and why there was a further delay to February 2022. While there was a discussion of a post-inspection in December 2021 and a hope that the works would be done by then, there was no evidence of the landlord chasing the contractor after August 2021. There appeared to be no system for doing so either, but rather, the landlord was reactive rather than proactive and instigated by the resident making a complaint. This was not satisfactory. However, the Ombudsman notes that the remaining works were essentially decorative and also bears in mind the ongoing impact of the pandemic, even though it had ended by that time. The Ombudsman finds service failure in relation to the delays, lack of consistent monitoring and lack of communication, for which the Ombudsman considers it fair to make an order for compensation but the level will be, in the view of the Ombudsman, proportionate to the overall circumstances.

The electrics

71. The evidence showed that the landlord acted promptly in response to the resident’s reports regarding the electrics supply tripping out and the faulty sockets. The Ombudsman does not find service failure in this regard.

The intercom door entry system.

72. The records showed that the landlord raised jobs in response to the resident’s reports of the intercom not working promptly, which was reasonable in particular, given the household vulnerabilities. While the contractor informed the landlord that it had attempted to attend the resident, there was no evidence of the contractors attempting to attend, or of their chasers, except a reference to a letter of 31 August 2021. This again reflected poor monitoring and poor record keeping. However, the Ombudsman does not find service failure as jobs were raised appropriately, and the intercom was repaired and replaced.

The heating and hot water system

73. The landlord’s repair records indicated that a boiler was installed in March 2016. It also showed that, while there was no evidence that the landlord serviced the boiler prior to the let, it was functioning when it was inspected for the purposes of a Gas Safety Certificate. It is noted that the issues did not begin until some four months after the resident moved in (and not 7-8 months as stated by the landlord). There was no evidence therefore that the boiler was fundamentally defective from the outset. The landlord attended promptly after each of the resident’s report and reasonably replaced the boiler given the number of call outs. The landlord did the same for the radiators. The landlord offered £250 in recognition of the number of call outs the resident made which, in the opinion of the Ombudsman, constitutes reasonable redress.

Leaks from the resident’s toilet and the resident’s request for compensation for damaged belongings.

74. It was not disputed that a flooding incident occurred on 6 June 2020. The flooding extended from the toilet into the hall and bedroom. The landlord’s internal notes of 4 March 2021, which demonstrated an investigation of the records, noted that the landlord was aware of the call out on 8 June 2020. It was unclear to the landlord itself whether the resident herself followed this up, which is a reflection of its record keeping. However, she did not provide evidence to the landlord that she did so, therefore the Ombudsman is unable to make a definitive finding either way. The landlord acknowledged that the plumber did not cite the cause of the leak which is a further reflection of poor monitoring of record keeping.
75. There was no evidence that the leak affected the plastering on the walls, in particular as the issue of the WC and bathroom walls were raised prior to March 2021. The evidence did show that the landlord reasonably effected a number of repairs to the toilet but there was no evidence that they were linked to the blockage, given the works were raised a number of months after the incident.
76. There was no evidence that the resident reported a flooding in May or June 2021. A note of the inspection of 7 June 2021 would have assisted the landlord in considering this. While there are the third-party observations of the social worker in November 2021, a social worker was not best placed to identify the cause of the damaged plastering and bath which had, in any event, been reported in March 2021, prior to the alleged flood of June 2021. The damage reported by the social worker was consistent with the already reported condition of the bathroom and WC, and with the flooding report of June 2020.
77. While the landlord could have considered contacting the resident following the flooding, the Ombudsman considers that the landlord acted reasonably and promptly in response to the flooding.
78. The extent of lasting damage and damage to possessions was also disputed. There was no evidence that the blockage in the WC was due to the landlord’s fault. In the circumstances, the landlord would not have had a legal obligation to compensate the resident for the damage. In any event, the resident did not provide to the landlord details or evidence of damage to possessions. That is not to say there was none but that the landlord was unable to consider it. The Ombudsman does not find that it was unreasonable that the landlord did not agree to the resident’s claim for compensation. However, the Ombudsman is unable to make definite findings on matters of negligence and the resident would have to seek legal advice and seek to claim under her own (if she has any) or the landlord’s insurers.
79. Given the landlord responded to the report of the flooding, and there was no evidence of fault on its part, the Ombudsman does not find service failure in this regard.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s report of landlord staff conduct.

80. It appeared that the member of staff who inspected the property on 20 October 2020 did not leave notes of his visit. By the time the issue of this conduct was raised with the landlord, the landlord was unable to make any enquiries as he had left the landlord’s employment. While it would have been unacceptable for a member of staff to have spoken in the way the resident reported, there was no further action the landlord could take except to emphasise to its staff the importance of making notes of an inspection and consider following this up in writing. However, a number of works were raised in the days following the visit, including to the kitchen works and to the WC, therefore this demonstrated that the member of staff took the resident seriously and put works into action. The Ombudsman does not find service failure in this regard.

The landlord’s complaint handling

81. The records landlord carried out a detailed investigation into the complaint, demonstrated that the landlord investigated the complaint with reference to its records, it made enquiries of the various services and contractors, and was evidence based. It also meant that the landlord was in a position to provide the Ombudsman with the necessary documents such as the repair records, job sheets and invoices. The complaint response reflected these investigations.
82. The landlord demonstrated that it took action as a result of the complaint which led to the resolving of a number of the issues. While it is unsatisfactory that the landlord appeared to take proactive action as a result of a complaint, it demonstrated the beneficial effect of the complaint handling. It was also reasonable that the landlord treated the complaint of October 2021 as an escalation of her previous complaint.
83. However, there were omissions to the complaint handling. The landlord did not respond to the resident’s complaint about the unhygienic bins. It did not respond either to the complaint that the neighbour’s report about her music was potentially racist in nature or the allegations that the staff blamed her for the boiler fault. It did not address the resident’s complaint that the emergency plumber attended after six hours. This was unreasonable.
84. The landlord’s summary of its learning consisted of a general statement that it would aim to provide excellent service. It set out that its delays due to the pandemic and a requirement for understanding by the resident. That did not constitute genuine or any learning by the landlord. This was unsatisfactory. While it stated the resident had not made any fresh points, which was reasonable, the review itself was no more than a summary of its previous response.
85. It was inappropriate that the landlord failed to respond to the resident’s complaint of February 2021, nor did it acknowledge or address this omission in its complaint response. The internal notes of 4 March 2021 stated that the landlord would have referred the resident to her insurers, had she claimed for damage to her possessions. It was unreasonable that this advice was not raised in the complaint response. There is, however, no evidence of actual impact on the resident that the landlord did not refer the resident to either insurer. The experience would have been unpleasant for the resident. It was unreasonable not to have given proper consideration to the impact of the flooding on the resident and did not show empathy.
86. There was reference to the repairs being “high profile” and “a repairs case”. It was not clear why it was considered to be so. The Ombudsman is concerned that a landlord would prioritise a resident. While a landlord should have regard for household vulnerabilities and avoid exacerbating any service failures with further delays, the handling of repairs should not have depended on whether a resident makes and pursues a complaint. The Ombudsman also noted that the landlord made the offer of £250 which would be paid if that settled the matter. This may have been a poor choice of words but the landlord should avoid making an offer sound as if it were conditional upon the resident not taking a complaint further.
87. The complaint handling, overall, demonstrated examples of good and poor practice. While the complaint handling elicited some progress and monitoring of the works and there was an evidence-based investigation, it was inappropriate that the landlord did not provide a written response to the resident’s first complaint, there were gaps in the responses and it did not demonstrate any learning. In the circumstances, the Ombudsman finds service failure. But for the benefits of the complaint handling, the finding would have been maladministration.

The landlord’s record–keeping

88. As highlighted in the chronology, there were several instances of contradictory entries in the repair records, where the date of completion predated the date the works were raised andincidents of entries stating that the works were completed on a date when the evidence showed otherwise. For example, the records stated that the kitchen works raised in October 2020 and carried out in November 2020, when they were, according to the email correspondence, in fact, carried out in August 2021. While the actual completion date of the kitchen works was not reflected in the repairrecords.
89. This report has also highlighted other instances of poor record keeping. It is noted that they were gaps in the records, such as evidence of the resident refusing works in January 2021 and October 2021. Likewise, there was no record of the contractor’s efforts to contact the resident regarding the intercom repairs. The gaps may have been in the contractor’s communication rather than the records of the landlord. The Ombudsman would have expected the landlord to require its contractors to report back so that the landlord could monitor the repairs and track its actions. This report has highlighted instances of how poor record keeping impacted on the service provided by the landlord and its ability to track and explain its actions and be confident about its position. Good record keeping ensures that the landlord can track its actions and monitor its repairs and the actions of its contractors. It is something the landlord can require of its contractors since its contractors are carrying out works on its behalf.
90. The landlord is referred to the Ombudsman’s Spotlight report on Knowledge and Information Management (KIM). KIM-report-v2-100523.pdf (housing-ombudsman.org.uk) . This extract summarises what was identified in this investigation:
    1. An area of importance to KIMS .. “is the scale of the issues on disrepair, with 88% of landlord complaints handlers telling us how poor information undermines their response. When we investigate, I repeatedly see cases where the landlord’s repair logs are missing or incomplete, and if they do exist are not informative because it records an operative’s visit but not what they did, or indeed decided not to do. While concerns about material inflation, skill shortages or contractors are valid, this should not obscure fundamental intelligence failures in repairs services.”
91. In the circumstances, the Ombudsman finds maladministration in relation to its record keeping.

Determination (decision)

92. In accordance with paragraph 42(k) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the following aspect of the complaint is outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.
    1. The landlord’s consideration of the resident’s housing needs and the suitability of her current accommodation and the decision to remove the resident from the housing list for three years.
93. In accordance with Paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration in relation to the condition of the property when it was let to her.
94. In accordance with Paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration in relation to the landlord’s handling of noise reports by neighbours.
95. In accordance with Paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure in relation to the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of the kitchen layout and condition of the bathroom and WC walls.
96. In accordance with Paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration in relation to the landlord’s handling of works and repairs in the resident’s property.
    1. The electrics.
    2. The intercom door entry system.
97. In accordance with Paragraph 53(b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, in the Ombudsman’s view, there was reasonable redress in relation to the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports about the heating and hot water system.
98. In accordance with Paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration in relation to the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of flooding from the her toilet and her request for compensation for damaged belongings.
99. In accordance with Paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration in relation to the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of landlord staff conduct.
100. In accordance with Paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure in relation to the landlord’s complaint handling.
101. In accordance with Paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in relation to the landlord’s record keeping.

Reasons

102. There was no evidence that there were any fundament issues with the property at the outset. The electrics and boiler were functioning and the issues that arose either only became apparent some months after the resident moved on or were not connected to the works identified in the void check.
103. While the landlord should have clarified its response, the response by the landlord was reasonable, given the nature and frequency of the noise reports.
104. The landlord reasonably carried out the works to change the layout of the kitchen and to carry out plastering and decorating works. However there were lengthy delays, not all of which could not be explained by the pandemic or any difficulties with access.
105. The works to the electrics and intercom were raised promptly carried out within a reasonable period of time, given the access issues, and the intercom was replaced.
106. The landlord attended to the repairs to the boiler and radiators, replaced equipment and reasonably replaced the boiler. The offer of compensation in recognition of the resident’s time and trouble was, in the opinion of the Ombudsman, reasonable.
107. There was no evidence that the blockage that caused the flooding was attributable to the landlord or of a report of a second flooding. The plumber attended within a reasonable timescale.
108. The landlord was unable to investigate or take any steps in relation to the member of staff the resident complained about.
109. There was aspects of poor and beneficial complaint handling.
110. There was evidence of gaps in the landlord’s record keeping and what it expected as feedback from its contractors. This impacted on the landlord’s ability to track and explain its actions and to monitor its repairs.

Orders

111. The Ombudsman makes the following orders:
112. The landlord is ordered to pay the resident compensation in the amount of £700 within 4 weeks as follows:
     1. £250 in relation to the resident’s reports of the kitchen layout and condition of the bathroom and WC walls, given the delays and lack of updates.
     2. £150 in relation to the landlord’s complaint handling.
     3. £300 in relation to the landlord’s record keeping.
113. The landlord should consider the points highlighted in this investigation about its record keeping, including in its relationships with its contractors, set out a bullet-point plan for a review and provide this to the Ombudsman within 12 weeks of this report. This should include keeping clear and comprehensive records of its inspections, actions and decisions.
114. The landlord should confirm compliance with the above orders to the Housing Ombudsman Service within 4 weeks of this report.

Recommendations

115. The Ombudsman makes the following recommendations:
     1. The landlord should consider carrying out functionality checks to boilers prior to reletting a property.
     2. The landlord should ensures that it monitors its contractors and repairs to ensure its quality standards proactively and not only in response to a complaint.
     3. The landlord should ensure that it updates its residents as appropriate as to timescales for works.
     4. The landlord should ensure that it responds to complaints within its timescales, that it provides appropriate guidance such as claim to insurers, that is responds to all aspects of a complaint, that it considers the impact of an events such as flooding on a resident.
     5. The landlord should ensure that when reviewing reports by the environmental health officer, that it considers the reports from a housing management perspective, and in line with its ASB policy bearing in mind the bar for a statutory nuisance is higher than that of noise nuisance.
116. The landlord should notify the Ombudsman of its intentions regarding these recommendations within four weeks of this report.