The Housing Ombudsman (HO) told Broxtowe Borough Council to apologise to a claimant, and pay hundreds of pounds in compensation, over 'significant failings' in how the authority dealt with repairs to a council house. A female complainant contacted the council to tell them of a roof leak, a cold working shower, a faulty immersion heater and mould and condensation.
However, a council reports notes that during the complaint process it was identified there were "significant failings" in its Housing Repairs department to book and undertake the repair issues identified by the complainant. It was found that works were not being logged correctly, records of completion were not logged correctly and significant delays occurred in the repairing of all the identified issues.
The council initially offered the complainant an apology and £350 compensation. And the authority's Housing Repairs Team was tasked with contacting the complainant to book works to repair the issues.
Read more: Nottinghamshire pub's warning as family-of-six leave without paying £100 bill
But the complainant rejected the compensation and chose to escalate the issue with the Housing Ombudsman (HO). The HO, in turn, identified fault with the issues raised in line with the council’s previous findings, a report compiled by the authority said.
The HO recommended that the council pay £850 compensation. This was broken down into £375 for the delays in the repairs, £125 for the frustration caused and the £350 originally offered by the council.
In line with the recommendations, the council said it had paid the £850 in compensation and issued an apology to the complainant. "The council reviewed its internal functions and identified areas of improvement," a statement in the council report said.
And the HO has made what's described in the council report as a "finding of injustice in respect of a lack of repairs undertaken to a complainant’s property". Details of the location of the council property are unclear.
The council's tenancy handbook says it will complete emergency repairs within one working day, and will prioritise all other repairs accordingly. The usual timeframe for non-emergency / urgent general reactive repairs across the social landlord sector is around 28 days.
A report from the HO says: "There was maladministration in respect of the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of a wide range of repairs, including leaks, damp and mould. There was service failure in respect of the landlord’s complaint handling."
The complainant's property was inspected in June 2019 following concerns being raised about damp and mould, with work carried out in August 2019, although the nature of the work is unknown. On November 19, 2019, the resident reported a persistent roof leak with cladding and guttering needing to be renewed, which was identified.
A "work order" was raised on May 22, 2020, and the resident was advised she would be contacted to arrange an appointment on June 2 that year. Repair records are vague in terms of the repair work carried out, according to a report.
Mould and condensation was reported again on October 6, 2020, which was cleaned on November 30, 2020, but it was reported as coming back on December 11, 2020. It was inspected again on February 11, 2021.
A formal complaint was raised on February 3, 2021, listing outstanding repairs as the leak, immersion heater, mould, condensation and shower. The resident asked to move into a new home on February 18, 2021, immediately, and escalated a complaint on February 25 the same year, providing a timeline dating back to February 2018 as evidence that she had previously reported the repairs.
The HO report says: "The landlord did not respond to the resident’s request to be rehoused until after the end of its complaints process. That was poor service. But the landlord’s decision not to offer a home transfer was reasonable."
A stage two complaint response was issued on April 21, 2021, and Broxtowe Borough Council acknowledged that the resident had not received an appropriate level of service, and apologised. The council emailed the resident on May 28, 2021, confirming it had completed work to the immersion heater, shower, and for the mould and windows.
The HO report says: "It failed to act in line with the generally accepted timeframe of 28 days for non-emergency repairs. No explanation for these delays were provided to the resident, and there is no evidence that the landlord provided updates to the resident, which basic good practice would have called for it to do.
"Although the landlord initially attended within a reasonable timeframe, there was a significant and unreasonable delay in it arranging follow up work, despite the resident chasing it." According to the HO report, the council said it would complete the roof leak repair in June 2021, and the works were not sufficient enough to warrant an offer of a home transfer.
The council advised the HO on August 6, 2021, that repair work to resolve the leak would be completed within seven-10 days.
The HO report says: "Nonetheless, despite it taking steps to resolve the leak, there was still an unreasonable delay over a considerable amount of time. It took six months to raise a work order, and a subsequent 15 months to begin repair work. These were significant delays which the landlord failed to justify or explain."
The complaints process found there was a 'significant failing' in the Housing Repairs department to book and undertake the repair issues, according to a report to the monitoring officer. Work was not being logged correctly, neither were records of completion and significant delays occurred in repairing all the issues, it has been found.
The local authority offered compensation of £350 and for the work to be complete, but the complainant rejected the offer and contacted the Housing Ombudsman (HO). The complainant raised issues of how his complaint was handled, and the mould had had an impact on her and her family's health
The HO recommended the council pay £850 in compensation, and to identify learnings of the failures. The council has since issued an apology to the complainant along with the £850 compensation. It also reviewed internal functions and identified areas of improvement.
To read all the biggest and best stories first sign up to read our newsletters here.