Stevenage Borough Council (202300243)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202300243

Stevenage Borough Council

30 April 2025

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

This complaint is about the landlord’s response to the resident’s:
1. Reports of ongoing issues with the windows and doors at her property.
2. Concerns about the conduct of a member of its staff.
This complaint is also its handling of the associated complaint

Background

The resident is a secure tenant of the landlord, which is a council. The tenancy commenced on 5 September 1977. The property is a 3-bedroom detached house. The resident’s adult son lives with her at the property. At the time of her complaint, the resident was 78 years old.
In its evidence submission, the landlord told us the resident had said her home being cold had impacted her mental health. The landlord has provided no evidence of it being aware of the resident’s adult son’s vulnerabilities, prior to this complaint being made.
On 3 April 2023, the resident wrote to the landlord to raise a formal complaint. The resident’s letter was stamped by the landlord as having been received on 13 April 2023. In her letter the resident complained about ongoing issues with the windows and doors at her property and asked for a copy of a recent inspection that had been carried out by the landlord’s contractor. The resident also complained about a member of the landlord’s staff who she had recently spoken to. The resident said that they had put the phone down on her and left her ‘in limbo’ about what was going to happen.
The landlord issued its stage 1 response on 27 April 2023, and stage 2 on 29 September 2023. In its responses the landlord said:
1. With regards to the residents windows and doors:
  1. It was sorry to hear that she was still having issues with her windows. However, these had been inspected and found to be of a good standard and suitable for their intended use. The landlord said they had all been professionally installed and met building regulations standards. The landlord provided a copy of the FENSA certificate which confirmed the window and door installations carried out in 2016 were compliant with building regulations.
  2. The front and back door had been replaced on 26 June 2023.
  3. It had asked that its asset management team let the resident know when her home was due to have her windows replaced.
  4. The resident’s property was not due to be part of its stock condition survey that year. However, it had asked the external surveyor, who had been appointed to undertake these, to add the resident’s home to its programme. The resident was asked to let the landlord know if she would like it to arrange for the survey to take place in the coming weeks.
2. With regards to the resident’s complaint about its member of staff:
  1. It had interviewed the member of staff who spoke to the resident on the phone and they maintained that it was not possible to hear what was being said due to background noise. They also said they repeatedly made the resident aware that they were unable to hear and unfortunately had to terminate the call.
  2. This would not be the standard way calls were dealt with but ‘regrettably this was the only option as it was not possible to conduct a conversation’.
  3. It apologised to the resident if it fell short of its expected customer service and for any unintended distress this may have caused.
3. It was sorry for the delay in providing its stage 2 response, for which it offered the resident £100 compensation.

Assessment and findings

The Ombudsman’s role is to assess whether the landlord has followed proper procedure, good practice, and behaved reasonably, taking account of all the circumstances of the case. When considering the landlord’s handling of the matter, the Ombudsman is guided by the landlord’s policies and procedures and our own Dispute Resolution Principles, which are:
1. Be fair – treat people fairly and follow fair process.
2. Put things right.
3. Learn from outcomes.
In determining whether there has been service failure or maladministration we consider both the events that initially prompted a complaint and the landlord’s response to those events. The extent to which a landlord has recognised any shortcomings and the appropriateness of any steps taken to offer redress can be as relevant as the original mistake or service failure.

Scope of investigation

In her complaint the resident referred to the impact the issues with her windows and doors was having on her health. We do not doubt the resident’s concerns, but it is beyond the remit of the Ombudsman to make a determination on whether there was a direct link between the standard of the windows and doors in her property and her health. The resident may wish to seek independent advice on making a personal injury claim if they consider their health, or that of their family members, to have been affected by any action or failure by the landlord.
Whilst we understand that the resident’s concerns about the windows and doors in her property has been a long-standing issue, we cannot investigate complaints which have not exhausted a member’s complaints procedure.
On 16 January 2023, the landlord issued a stage 1 response to a complaint about the windows and doors. In that stage 1 response the landlord advised the resident of her right to escalate her complaint and, should she wish to, she would need to do so within 15 working days. This would have been by 6 February 2023.
As the resident did not contact the landlord to complain again until 3 April 2023, it was reasonable for the landlord not to escalate her earlier complaint and to log a new one. The complaint for which the landlord issued its stage 1 response on 16 January 2023 did not therefore exhaust the landlord’s formal complaints process.
However, in that response the landlord committed to arranging an inspection of the resident’s windows and doors to decide what repairs may be necessary. This inspection took place on 15 February 2023 and will be the starting point for this investigation.

Ongoing issues with the windows and doors at the resident’s property.

The inspection the landlord committed to in its previous stage 1 response of 16 January 2023, took place on 15 February 2023. The report from the inspection noted there was ‘nothing wrong’ with the windows. The report also noted the back door leaf was too small for the frame and recommended that a new UPVC door be installed. The contractor recommended, as there had been ongoing issues, that a new composite front door installed.
Given this inspection was raised in response to an earlier complaint, it was reasonable for the resident to expect the landlord to provide her with an update as soon as possible after the inspection had taken place. However, we have seen no evidence of the landlord doing so until the resident’s formal complaint of 3 April 2023, almost 2 months later. That it failed to provide details of the inspection in a timely manner would have understandably caused unnecessary distress and inconvenience to the resident.
It is reasonable for landlords to rely on the findings of their professional personnel and contractors in the assessment of reported repairs and the appropriate measure for dealing with them. Given that its contractor had reported that there was ‘nothing wrong’ with the windows, it was reasonable for the landlord to take no further action. In the absence of any reliable expert report contradicting the landlord’s findings, there is no basis to conclude that the landlord’s analysis of the condition of the windows was inaccurate.
Nevertheless, given that the resident continued to have concerns about her windows, the landlord took reasonable steps to seek to address those concerns. This included arranging for its asset management team to let the resident know when her home was due to have her windows replaced. It also said it would ask the external surveying practice, appointed to undertake its stock condition survey, to add the resident’s home to its programme for that year.
We have seen an internal email in which the landlord’s asset management team advised that the windows were not due for replacement for approximately 30 years. However, we have seen no evidence of the landlord sharing this information with the resident. That it did not do so was a failure on its part, given this was something it had committed to in its complaint responses.
We have also seen no evidence of the resident’s property being added to the landlord’s stock condition survey that year. However, we have been unable to conclude that this was a failure by the landlord. This is because the resident was asked to let the landlord know if she would like it to arrange for her property to be added to the survey, and we have no evidence that she did so.
With regards to the resident’s doors. The inspection on 15 February 2023 recommended the replacement of both the resident’s front and back doors. The landlord then received a quote to replace both doors on 1 March 2023.
In accordance with the timescales set out in the landlord’s repairs policy, it would have been expected to have completed the repair within 20 working days. However, the doors were not replaced until 16 June 2023, over 3 months later.
A delay in repairs is not always considered a failure, particularly if the issue is complex. However, in-line with general customer service standards, the landlord would be expected to proactively manage the repair, and complete it as soon as practically possible. It would also be expected to update the resident and manage their expectations.
In this case there is no evidence to suggest that the replacement was particularly complex and the evidence of the landlord ‘proactively managing the repair’ is limited. Further there is no evidence of the landlord keeping the resident up to date during this 3-month delay, which would have understandably caused further unnecessary distress and inconvenience to her. This was particularly so in this case given that at the time of the complaint the resident was 78 years old and had advised the landlord on 11 May 2023 that, due to gaps in her doors, and in order to keep her home warm, she was having to keep the thermostat at 27oC.
Overall, the unreasonable delay in the doors being replaced and the impact this had on the resident, together with the landlord’s failure to follow through with all the commitments it made, represents maladministration on its part.
To put this right, the landlord is to apologise for these failures and pay the resident a total of £200 compensation. As the information from the asset management team is included in this report, a further order has not been made beyond the landlord ensuring that this matter is addressed in its apology.

Concerns about the conduct of a member of the landlord’s staff

Given the resident had raised concerns about the behaviour of a member of its staff towards her, the landlord would be expected to conduct a fair and objective investigation, take appropriate action where necessary, and clearly relay its findings to the resident.
Whilst it is not possible to definitively establish what happened during the call in question, it is clear the landlord considered the allegations and took steps to investigate the resident’s concerns. This included speaking to the member of staff whose behaviour had been complained about.
Whilst it found no evidence to support the resident’s concerns, the landlord sought to explain its member of staff’s position as to what happened during the call. It also apologised that its service had fallen short of its expected customer service and for any unintended distress this may have caused.
Whilst this was a reasonable response by the landlord, what it did not address however, is what happened after the call was terminated. We have not seen records of the call. Nevertheless, it is clear from the resident’s complaint on 3 April 2023 that she was expecting some information from the member of staff during that call. This is because in her complaint, the resident said she was left ‘in limbo’ when the call was terminated.
If it was the case that the member of staff had been trying to provide the resident with information, but felt they were unable to continue with the call, it would have been good practice for them to have followed up in writing. Had they done so, they could have both explained the reason why they terminated the call and provided the resident with the information that they had been unable to share.
That there is no evidence that they did so represents a service failure for which the landlord has been ordered to apologise and pay the resident £50 compensation.

Handling of the associated complaint

The landlord has a two-stage complaints process:
1. Stage 1: Complaints are acknowledged within 5 working days and a response is provided within 10 working days after the acknowledgment.
2. Stage 2: Complaints are also acknowledged within 5 working days, with a response given within 20 working days following the acknowledgment.
The resident wrote to the landlord to make a formal complaint on 3 April 2023. This was sent by post and stamped as received by the landlord on 13 April 2023.
In accordance with its complaints policy, the landlord would have been expected to have acknowledged the complaint within 5 working days and to have provided its stage 1 response within 10 working days of the acknowledgement.
Whilst the landlord’s acknowledgement seen by us is not dated, it is evident that this was issued and the resident advised that the stage 1 response would be provided by 27 April 2023, which it was.
The resident escalated her complaint on 11 May 2023. In accordance with its complaints policy, the landlord would have been expected to have acknowledged the escalation request within 5 working days and to have provided its stage 2 response within 20 working days of the acknowledgement.
Whilst the landlord’s acknowledgement seen by us was again not dated, it is evident that this was issued and the resident advised that the stage 2 response would be provided no later than 9 June 2023, which it did not do.
Having had no response from the landlord, the resident contacted us on 4 August 2023. We then wrote to the landlord on 21 September 2023 to remind it of its obligation to provide a response.
Following contact from us, the landlord then issued its stage 2 response on 29 September 2023. This was over 4 months after the resident had escalated the complaint on 11 May 2023.
Given the length of time the resident had to wait for its response, and that she had had to engage our services in order to ensure her complaint was progressed, it was appropriate for the landlord to acknowledge and apologise for this failure. To make it right, the landlord offered the resident £100 compensation.
Overall, we are satisfied the apology and compensation offered by the landlord provided the resident with reasonable redress for the delay in its stage 2 response, and the unnecessary distress and inconvenience this would have understandably caused her.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in respect of its response to the resident’s reports of ongoing issues with the windows and doors at her property.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure by the landlord in respect of its response to the resident’s concerns about the conduct of a member of its staff.
In accordance with paragraph 53(b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord provided reasonable redress in respect of its handling of the associated complaint.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

Within 4 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord is ordered to:
1. Apologise to the resident for the failures identified.
2. Pay the resident a total of £250 compensation, this being made up of:
  1. £200 for the unreasonable delay in the doors being replaced, the impact this delay had on her, and the landlord’s failure to evidence that followed through with its commitment that its asset management team would let her know when her home was due to have the windows replaced
  2. £50 for its failure to follow up in writing after the call, that formed part of the resident’s complaint, was terminated.
3. It is the Ombudsman’s position that compensation awarded by this Service should be treated separately from any existing financial arrangements between the landlord and resident and should not be offset against arrears.

Recommendation

That if it has not done so already, the landlord is to pay the resident the £100 offered for the delay in it issuing its stage 2 response. The finding of reasonable redress being based on the landlord making this payment to the resident.