City of London Corporation (202335509)

Background

1. The resident lives in a block of flats. Care services forced entry to the resident’s flat on 10 October 2023, following concerns for his safety. This damaged the front door, which was secured by the addition of a padlock. This was cut off the following day, meaning the resident could not secure the property from the outside. The landlord replaced the door on 5 February 2024. The resident does not have a phone, communication is either through email or when the landlord posted notes through his door. He advised us of his vulnerabilities. These include severe sight impairment, hearing loss, and restricted mobility. He described himself as an elderly, vulnerable person. The landlord was aware the resident has mental health needs.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of:
   1. The resident’s door repair.
   2. The complaint.

Our decision (determination)

3. There was reasonable redress in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s door repair.
4. There was service failure in the landlord’s handling of the complaint.

We have made an order for the landlord to put things right.

Summary of reasons

5. The landlord did not replace the resident’s front door in line with its repairs policy. It recognised this and offered compensation. In our opinion, this satisfactorily resolved the complaint point.
6. The landlord repeatedly extended its deadline for both complaint responses, which were still late. We did not find there were reasonable reasons for some of the extensions.

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.

7. The landlord’s policy states it will make a door safe in 24 hours. It acted in line with this by securing the door on 10 October 2023, following the initial forced entry.
8. The day after, the padlock was cut off the door. We do not know who did this. This left the resident without the means to lock the front door when he went out. He could secure the flat when he was in it. The local officer appropriately raised this to the landlord.
9. In line with its policy, its contractor attended on 12 October 2023 to repair/replace the door. We note the resident on 2 November 2023 said that no one had attended this appointment. However, as we have the landlord’s contemporaneous notes from 13 October 2023, we believe it is reasonable to accept this visit took place. We do not know what work, if any took place during this visit. Up to this point we believe the landlord visited in line with its policy.
10. The landlord raised a job for a replacement door on 23 October 2023. The resident may have had the door replaced faster had the job been raised during the visit on 12 October 2023 which was 7 working days earlier. This was a failing on the landlord’s part.
11. The landlord gave itself 20 working days, to 20 November 2023, to complete the door replacement. The landlord did this on 5 February 2024, this was 51 working days late. This was a failing which the landlord appropriately acknowledged in its final response letter.
12. We can see the landlord emailed the resident to advise the door would be replaced on 30 October 2023. The resident said no one attended. The landlord advised its contractor said there was no access when it visited on 1 November 2023. As such we believe it is reasonable to accept the contractor did not attend on 30 October as arranged, but went the following day. This was a failing, which ultimately meant the issue was outstanding for longer. 
13. The landlord contacted the resident on 3 November 2023 and said it had been trying to arrange an appointment with him to fit the door. To be resolution focused the landlord should have emailed the resident with an appointment. We can see there was an appointment on 11 December 2023, and a new door ordered on this date.
14. It was evident by the delayed stage 1 response, the landlord was having communication issues with its repairs team and/or its contractor. Ultimately and appropriately, the landlord changed contractor. In its final response letter, it said it had contacted the contractor to establish the reason for the delay and to explain this was unacceptable. It also addressed why this had not been internally escalated when the contractor did not respond. This was an appropriate response from the landlord and what complaint processes should be addressing.
15. The landlord in its stage 1 response said when its contractor allegedly failed to attend it was not due to the local office’s negligence. While this may be correct, the landlord was responsible for the overall service it provides the resident whether this was directly or through a contractor. We note the landlord recognised this by awarding compensation.
16. We acknowledge the resident wished staff to be disciplined. That is not an outcome that we can provide, as we assess the landlord as a whole, rather than its individual employees. However, it was an appropriate response for the landlord to address this with the contractor and internally. This is how the landlord will ensure this situation would not happen again, which was a remedy request from the resident. 
17. The resident requested unreserved apologies. We believe the landlord appropriately did this when it offered its “wholehearted apologies” for the period, he was unable to secure his front door.
18. The landlord’s policies outline the way it will adhere to its duty of care, professional duty, health and safety, and the tenancy agreement. While it did not explicitly state this, by making the offer of compensation the landlord recognised it did not operate in line with these. As an extension of this we could deduce it did not prioritise its professional duty, duty of care, or the safety of the resident’s property when he was not in. We are satisfied the landlord’s remedy appropriately offered a remedy for it not operating outside its policies.
19. Overall, while there was a 51 working day delay in replacing the door, the landlord took appropriate steps following the complaint to resolve this. It reviewed what it did, completed the works, and apologised and compensated for issues it identified. This demonstrates that the landlord’s response to the complaint was positive, customer and resolution focused.
20. Prior to our investigation the landlord awarded the resident £500 for this delay and the impact of this delay. This puts the case in the maladministration category, which was what we would have found. Therefore, in our view, this offer of redress resolved the landlord’s handling of the resident’s door repair.

21. The resident told us the landlord did not progress his complaint to its 3rd stage of its complaints process. Having only 2 complaint stages is in line with our Complaint Handling Code (the Code) and with its policy. Therefore, when the landlord advised the resident of this, it acted appropriately.
22. The landlord was late in both its complaint responses, however. It committed to providing its stage 1 response by 22 November 2023. 6 working days after this date the landlord advised the resident it required an extension. The landlord extended the deadline once more, before providing the stage 1 response. The brought his complaint to us as he was concerned by this delay. 
23. The final response deadline was extended 3 times. Aside being 1 day late on one of the notifications, it kept to its extension deadlines.
24. The Code that was applicable at the time of the complaint explained that any extension had to be agreed by both parties. This was different to the landlord’s complaint policy which allowed extensions if the reasons were clearly explained to the resident.
25. On one occasion the landlord said it had “been trying to get in touch with the lead investigator for an update” and it had “not received any communication to fulfil today’s deadline.” While we recognise this was explained to the resident, we do not believe this was a reasonable reason for a delay to providing the complaint response.
26. On another occasion the landlord informed the resident that it had to extend as its contractor had an appointment to visit the resident on 11 December 2023. The landlord then issued its stage 1 response without information about this visit. As the response went out without this, it unnecessarily delayed the response.
27. While extensions were permitted under the landlord’s policy, we have found service failure because it did not seek agreement with the resident in line with the Code, and the extension requests in our view, were not for good reason. This delayed the complaints process for the resident.
28. Therefore, there was service failure in the landlord’s handling of the complaint. We have awarded the resident £100 compensation for this.