South Tyneside Council (202343834)

Background

1.     At the time of the complaint the resident lived with her 2 adult children in 3-bedroom house which included access to a private garden with a block paved garden path. One of the resident’s adult children has mobility issues.

What the complaint is about

2.     The landlords handling of the repair works to the garden path.

3.     The landlord’s complaint handling.

Our decision (determination)

4.     There was maladministration by the landlord in its handling of repair works to the garden path.

5.     There was no maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.

We have made orders for the landlord to put things right.

Summary of reasons

The landlord’s handling of the repair works to the garden.

6.     The landlord did not carry out repairs in line with its repairs policy. Its failure to promptly arrange the necessary repairs following several inspections caused a delay in resolving this case. While it did complete repairs, this took 22 months longer than its repair policy said. Despite recognising the failings, the compensation offered did not go far enough to put things right.

The complaint handling

7.     The landlord handled the complaint in line with its policies and the complaint handling code.

Putting things right

Where we find service failure, maladministration, or severe maladministration we can make orders for the landlord to put things right. We have the discretion to make recommendations in all other cases within our jurisdiction.

Orders

Landlords must comply with our orders in the manner and timescales we specify. The landlord must provide documentary evidence of compliance with our orders by the due date set.

Recommendations

Our recommendations are not binding, and a landlord may decide not to follow them.

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

What we found and why

The circumstances of this complaint are well known by the parties involved, so it is not necessary to detail everything that’s happened or comment on all the information we’ve reviewed. We’ve only included the key information that forms the basis of our decision of whether the landlord is responsible for maladministration.

What we have not looked at

8.     In the interest of fairness, this investigation has focussed on the issues raised in the resident’s formal complaint. This is because the landlord needs to be given a chance to investigate and respond before we become involved. If the resident remains concerned about the work carried out after February 2024, or about the water pooling on a concrete slab she can raise this directly with the landlord.

What we have looked at

9.     We have looked at the landlord’s response to the path repairs that were reported between October 2021 and October 2023 and the complaint process following this. We have also looked at works included in the stage 2 response to review the topsoil in February 2024.

10. The garden path was initially inspected on the 8 November 2021, then on the 3 August 2022. There are no records that any follow-on works were raised. The landlord said that works were due to start in May and July 2023 but did not commence until after the resident raised her complaint. The landlord acknowledged it had no record of one of the inspections due to a staff member leaving. This shows poor record-keeping. The landlord must keep clear and accessible records to help staff manage issues properly. In this case, the resident was affected by having to chase the landlord for updates, and the failure to keep accurate records likely contributed to the delayed repair.

11. Between January 2022 and July 2023, the resident chased for updates on the repair. This did not align with the landlord’s Repair policy which says it will aim to deliver high levels of customer care and satisfaction. The failure to proactively update the resident was not reasonable and caused the resident time and trouble chasing for a resolution.

12. The landlord said the rear garden path was repaired on the 19 December 2023 this was 25 months from the initial report and 22 months after repairs should have been resolved. This was an unacceptable delay as the landlord’s Repair policy says that it will carry out planned repairs within 3 months. This caused the resident inconvenience demonstrated in her chasing the landlord for updates. The resident disputes all works have been completed we have recommended the landlord contact her to see what remains outstanding. 

13. The landlord booked the repair for 23 November 2023. It missed this appointment and rescheduled for 28 and 29 November 2023, which was still within its 3-month policy. However, it did not inform the resident it would miss the appointment. This further highlighted the landlord’s poor communication with the resident. The failure to tell the resident it would not make the appointment before the date further heightened the resident’s distress and was unreasonable.

14. Although the work started on the new date, it was not finished. The resident had to contact the landlord about rubbish left behind and to ask when the work would be completed. The landlord’s policy says repairs should be completed in one visit where possible, or the customer should be told about any delay and given a new date. There’s no evidence the landlord did this, which was not appropriate.

15. The landlord said in its stage 2 response that they would attend on the 8 February 2024 with a Team Leader to review the laying of the topsoil. The resident advised that a Team Leader did not attend, and the works carried out were not what was agreed. The landlord showed a report that it attended on the agreed date, but it does not confirm who attended or what work was carried out. We are unable to confirm what happened at this visit, but it would have been appropriate for the landlord to have clear records of attendance. This further highlights issues with record keeping and has caused inconvenience to the resident needing to follow up.

16. The path repairs were raised as a trip hazard each time they were logged. The failure to complete the path repair in the relevant timescales does not show due regard to the safety of the resident and her household.

17. In addition to the above, the landlord failed to consider the vulnerabilities of the resident’s household when deciding how to approach the repairs. Its Repair policy says that it will provide a service which reflects our commitment to equality of access to the repairs service for all customers and to take account of the needs of vulnerable people. However, the landlord was aware of the resident’s daughter’s mobility concerns, but there is no evidence to show the landlord considered this. For example, by completing a risk assessment or prioritising the works.

18. In its stage 2 complaint response the landlord did some positive things to try and put right its failings. It apologised to the resident, offered £200 compensation, committed to a review on its approach to communication, and organised a Team Leader to attend the resident’s property to review the laying of topsoil.

19. While it was positive that the landlord took some steps to put things right, we have found that it had multiple opportunities within the 25 months to resolve issues but failed to do so. It also agreed commitments at both stage 1 and 2 complaints process that where not fully delivered. As a result, the resident’s trust in the landlord was affected and the compensation offered did not fully reflect the prolonged impact of these failings.

20. We do not consider the compensation offered by the landlord fairly recognises the impact to the resident. Our remedies guidance says that where there has been an adverse impact on the resident, we will consider compensation. Given the length of delay (22 months), time and trouble taken by the resident to chase for a resolution and the commitments made by the landlord that were not fully delivered, a fair figure would be £300 inclusive of £200 already offered.

21. The Housing Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code) sets out when and how a landlord should respond to complaints. The relevant code in this case was the 2022 edition. While the Code at that time was not statutory it provided best practice guidance to landlords.

22. The landlord handled the complaint in line with its Complaint policy. At stage 1 of its complaint process the landlord responded after 20 working days. It explained the reasons for the delay. This followed its Complaint policy which says that where a response takes longer than 10 working days it will write to the resident to explain why.

23. It also dealt with the resident’s stage 2 complaint within its policy timescales of 20 working days. It addressed each point raised by the resident and offered a resolution where it accepted it fell short.

Learning

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

24. The landlord failed to keep adequate records of inspection reports. The landlord may want to consider how it could make improvements around this.

Communication

25. The landlord’s communication was poor, and the onus was placed on the resident to chase for updates.

26. The landlord recognised its failings around communication and has proceeded with a wider review of its communication.