Norwich City Council (202319029)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202319029

Norwich City Council

16 July 2024

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

The complaint is about the landlord’s:
1. Response to requests for repairs to the kitchen window.
2. Response to reports of issues with the intercom system.
3. Complaint handling.

Background

The resident is a leaseholder of a fourth-floor flat. The lease was assigned to the resident on 4 July 2023. The resident lives in the property with her young son.
The landlord’s evidence submission said that it had no vulnerabilities recorded for this household.
On 26 June 2023 the resident raised a concern about her kitchen window not closing correctly and a fault with the building intercom system. This was followed by a formal complaint on 26 July 2023 in which she said:
1. The repairs to the window were outstanding and were posing a health and safety risk.
2. The issues with the intercom were ongoing and causing inconvenience to the resident.
3. Despite previous assurances from the landlord, no work had been completed to rectify these issues.
The landlord issued its stage 1 complaint response on 4 September 2023. It said:
1. The repairs to the intercom were being progressed.
2. The windows required parts which were no longer available. The landlord had procured an ironmongery specialist to fabricate the parts.
3. It was in the process of procuring a contractor to fit the fabricated window fittings and repair the windows.
4. It apologised for the delays in completing the repairs.
The resident escalated her complaint to stage 2 on 27 September 2023 as she did not feel the response addressed her concerns or gave a full outcome. The landlord issued its stage 2 complaint response on 9 October 2023, in which it said:
1. It had sourced a supplier for the window fittings and was arranging installation.
2. The intercom repairs had been delayed as the model was now obsolete and it was not possible to purchase the correct parts. The contractor was undertaking an intercom upgrade on another building with the same intercom system, and it hoped that this would provide the spare parts needed. It estimated that the intercom repair would take around 2 weeks to complete.
3. It apologised for the delays in service that the resident had experienced.
The resident remained dissatisfied and escalated her complaint to the Ombudsman on 4 November 2023 seeking completion of the repairs to the kitchen windows and intercom, along with compensation for the delays and inconvenience.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

As part of the complaint, the resident included a statement from the former leaseholders which indicated that some of the repair issues were present during their tenure.
Paragraph 42(i) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme says that the Ombudsman may not consider complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, concern matters raised by a resident on behalf of another person without their authority.
Paragraph 42(a) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme says that the Ombudsman may not consider complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, are made prior to exhausting the landlord’s complaints procedure.
The Ombudsman has not received any evidence that the former leaseholder raised their complaints formally with the landlord or that this exhausted the landlord’s complaints procedure. Additionally, this Service has not been provided any authority or permission to investigate the former leaseholder’s complaint by the resident.
On this basis, this investigation will only consider matters raised by the resident themselves, during their tenure in the property and will not consider the complaints of the former leaseholder.

Repairs to the kitchen window

The resident reported to the landlord that she could not close her kitchen window on 26 June 2023. She felt that this presented a “serious health and safety issue” and that this caused a draught within the property.
The evidence shows that the landlord was aware of this issue prior to this, as it had previously sent a contractor to undertake repairs in May 2023, however he did not have the correct parts to complete the work.
Under Section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985, landlords have a statutory duty to maintain the structure and exterior of its properties, which includes the roof, walls, windows, doors and external fixtures. Once notified of a defect, landlords must make a lasting and effective repair in a reasonable time.
The landlord’s repairs policy and the resident’s lease confirm this legal obligation. The repairs policy gives three timescales for completing repairs, depending on their severity:
1. Emergency repairs will be completed within 24 hours.
2. Urgent repairs will be completed within 5 working days.
3. Routine repairs will be completed within 60 working days.
As the landlord had been put on notice of the repair by the resident, it should have responded as an emergency repair, given the risk of a fall from a fourth storey window. This was particularly urgent given there was a young child in the property. Additionally, as the window could not close, the landlord should have considered secondary issues such as draughts in the property and ingress of water.
The landlord has not provided any evidence of surveys, inspections or repair logs related to this issue. This is a significant record keeping failure which will have contributed to the issues in progressing this repair and has frustrated the Ombudsman’s ability to assess and investigate this case.
Correspondence between the resident and landlord indicates that the landlord offered to screw the window shut in July 2023. This was an attempt to mitigate the safety concerns as the landlord said that “tenant safety [was] a priority”.
The resident refused this as she said there was no alternative means of ventilating the kitchen. It is important to note that removing the ventilation source within a kitchen may lead to a build up of moisture or carbon monoxide. There is no evidence that the landlord responded to this concern or assessed alternative arrangements to secure the window while facilitating appropriate ventilation.
The Ombudsman expects landlords to consider resident safety concerns seriously and address these fully. The landlord’s failure to do this in this case caused significant distress and damaged the landlord and tenant relationship. It may have also placed the family at risk if the work to screw the windows shut had gone ahead.
The landlord’s complaint responses identified that the parts needed to repair the window were obsolete. It explained that it had procured a supplier to manufacturer replacement parts but was awaiting appointment of a contractor to fit them. The landlord did not give a specific timescale for this work and the evidence shows that this was a source of ongoing distress for the resident.
The resident raised a second formal complaint in March 2024 as the window repair was still outstanding. Within its complaint responses the landlord committed to completing the works “by the end of April 2024”. The landlord apologised for the distress and inconvenience but offered no reasons for this further delay.
The landlord has provided no evidence to show that the works were completed by the end of April 2024 as it had committed to, or by the time of this investigation.
While the Ombudsman appreciates that the availability of parts can delay a repair being undertaken, it is not acceptable that the issue has been ongoing for over 12 months without a resolution. This is particularly significant given the safety concerns raised by the resident.
The Ombudsman expects landlords to address all repairs in a timely way. In this case this may have necessitated the replacement of the window in its entirety or making a temporary fix which took account of the resident’s concerns about ventilation.
Throughout this process, there is no evidence of the landlord making any redress to the resident beyond apologising within its complaint responses. The landlord has not provided compensation or other redress to mitigate the delays, distress, and inconvenience that the resident and her family have experienced.
There were also several occasions where the resident contacted the landlord for an update on works because she had been promised an update which had not taken place. The landlord should have ensured that it communicated with the resident in a timely and effective way to reduce the distress experienced. Where it committed to contacting the resident at a specific point, it should have done this. The failure to do this, in this case, led to a breakdown of trust and further, avoidable, distress for the resident.
Overall, there has been severe maladministration in the landlord’s handling of repairs to the kitchen window because:
1. The repairs have been delayed by over 12 months and remain unresolved at the point of investigation. This demonstrates a significant lack of urgency on the matter given the potential safety concerns raised.
2. The landlord’s repair records are insufficient to indicate what, if any, works, surveys or reports have been completed in the intervening period.
3. The landlord has offered no redress to the resident beyond an apology in its complaint responses.
4. The resident had cause to repeatedly chase the landlord for updates on the status of repairs.
5. There is no evidence that the landlord considered the resident’s concerns about ventilation in the kitchen or other potential ways of mitigating the risks. This may include alternatives to screwing the windows shut and/or considerations around restrictors or artificial ventilation to resolve the ventilation concerns.
The landlord must now complete the work urgently to abate the safety concerns. This may include the fitting of restrictors or the provision of artificial ventilation alongside screwing the windows shut. If this cannot be achieved the landlord must consider decanting the family until the works can be completed. The landlord must also apologise to the resident, undertake a case review to better understand the delays and pay appropriate compensation.

Intercom system

The resident reported that the intercom in the building was not working on 26 June 2023. In her later complaints, she said the problems with the intercom were causing her to miss visitors and deliveries and were causing additional time and trouble for her family.
The landlord’s repairs policy and leaseholder handbook confirmed that it was responsible for maintaining and repairing door entry systems. This would usually be considered a routine repair and would therefore need to be completed within 60 working days under the landlord’s repairs policy.
The landlord’s stage 1 complaint response on 4 September 2023 said that it was progressing repairs with the intercom but gave no further details. Within its stage 2 complaint response, the landlord said:
1. A contractor visit on 24 April 2023 had identified that the intercom was faulty and needed to be repaired.
2. The intercom system was now obsolete, and parts were no longer available.
3. Its contractor was working on another property with the same intercom. Part of the works involved an upgrade to the intercom system. Following this work, it hoped to acquire some spare parts which could be used to repair the resident’s intercom. It estimated that this would be completed within 2 weeks.
Despite these assurances, the work was not completed, and the resident raised a further complaint on 15 March 2024. The landlord responded to this complaint on 5 April 2024 and said that the repairs to the intercom had been completed on 28 March 2024 but provided no further explanation or redress for the delay.
Overall, the repairs to the intercom took around 11 months to complete from the first time that the landlord was aware of the issue. This included a delay of over 6 months from the timescale given in the landlord’s first stage 2 response. These delays were in excess of the landlord’s policy timescales and caused additional distress and inconvenience to the resident.
The landlord’s second stage 1 response did not explain or quantify these delays or offer the resident any redress beyond an apology. The Ombudsman would have expected the landlord to use this process to identify the failings in its processes and take forward learning to prevent a reoccurrence. There is no evidence that this took place.
Throughout this process, there was also evidence of the resident contacting the landlord on numerous occasions to seek an update on the works. This included some occasions when the landlord had committed to providing a response and this had not been forthcoming. Landlords must communicate effectively with residents to maintain and rebuild trust and to mitigate the delays being experienced.
Taking these factors together, there has been maladministration in the landlord’s handling of reports of issues with the intercom because:
1. There were delays of 11 months to complete the repairs. The unavailability of parts was not a reasonable excuse to warrant this significant level of delay.
2. The landlord did not explain the reasons for the delays or outline any form of learning identified to prevent a reoccurrence of this in the future.
3. The landlord did not offer any redress to the resident beyond an apology.
4. The resident had cause to chase the landlord for updates on several occasions, often due to the landlord not meeting its timescales to provide an update.
The landlord must now apologise to the resident for these failings, identify the causes of the delays and pay appropriate compensation to remedy the delays, distress and inconvenience experienced by the resident.

Complaint handling

The Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (‘the Code’) sets out several key principles that landlords are required to adhere to in the management of complaints. This includes the following:
1. Landlords must respond to complaints within the timescales in the Code. This is 10 working days at stage 1 and 20 working days at stage 2. This is to avoid extending the complaint process or delaying access to the Ombudsman.
2. Complaints do not need to use the word “complaint” to be treated as such. A complaint should be raised when a resident expresses dissatisfaction.
3. Landlords must accept a complaint unless there is a valid reason not to. In these instances, it must clearly set out its position to the resident.
4. Landlords must keep a full record of the complaint, including supporting documents such as reports or surveys.
The landlord operates a two-stage complaint process. It commits to responding to stage 1 complaints within 10 working days and stage 2 complaints within 20 working days.
The evidence in this case shows that the resident first raised a complaint on 26 July 2023. The email sent by the resident stated that it was a complaint. Despite this, there is no record that this was escalated to the landlord’s complaint process. It was not until the resident made a follow up call on 30 August 2023 that the complaint was noted and progressed.
This was a failing as it circumvented the landlord’s complaint process and acted contrary to the Code operated at the time. The landlord should have recognised this as a valid complaint and responded appropriately. The landlord should now provide refresher training to complaint handling staff to enable them to recognise and progress complaints in a timely way.
Following the escalation, the evidence shows that the landlord’s stage 1 complaint response was issued after 28 working days, and this was over the timescales in the landlord’s policy. The landlord’s stage 2 response was sent within timescale.
In many cases, delays of this nature may be relatively insignificant and cause little distress or inconvenience to the resident. In this case, the complaint centred around a potential safety issue and the delays exacerbated this and frustrated the resident from being able to progress her complaint internally or to the Ombudsman. This was a significant failing.
The evidence shows that the resident raised a second complaint in March 2024 as the issues remained unresolved. While the substantive issues have been addressed earlier in this report, this also shows that the landlord did not take an opportunity to address the issues at the earliest stage or have processes in place to monitor a complaint to effective resolution and completion.
This was further compounded by the landlord’s poor record keeping. The resident in this case has complained regularly that the landlord has not correctly followed up on correspondence that it had received from her.
Additionally, following a request for evidence from the Ombudsman, the landlord has provided very limited records of its interactions with its contractor, repair records or records of inspections / assessments of the resident’s property.
The Ombudsman expects landlords to keep complete and accurate records of its complaint stages and associated processes, such as repair logs, surveys and assessments undertaken.
This has greatly limited the ability of the Ombudsman and the landlord itself to assess and monitor this case and is a significant failing. Our Service has used the available documentary evidence to decide this case.
Overall, there were delays in the landlord’s complaint processes caused by a failure to recognise a complaint when it was first raised. There has been no evidence of organisational learning from the complaint process or substantive issues and this was frustrated further by the landlord’s poor records.
Taking these factors together there has been maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling. It must now undertake a case review to identify the causes of failures in this case, implement appropriate organisational learning and pay the resident compensation.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there has been:
1. Severe maladministration in the landlord’s response to requests for repairs to the kitchen window.
2. Maladministration in the landlord’s response to reports of issues with the intercom system.
3. Maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

Within one week of the date of this determination the landlord is ordered to progress effective make safe measures in the property, incorporating additional ventilation measures if required. If the landlord cannot mitigate the risk, it must decant the resident until the works are completed.
Within 28 days of the date of this determination the landlord is ordered to:
1. Arrange for a senior officer at Director level or above to apologise to the resident in writing for the delays in completing the repairs and the complaint handling failures identified in this report.
2. Pay the resident £1450 compensation comprised of:
  1. £1200 for the time, trouble, distress and inconvenience to the resident and her family caused by delays in progressing the repairs to her kitchen window and intercom system.
  2. £250 for the complaint handling failures identified in this determination.

This compensation is in addition to any compensation previously offered or paid by the landlord and This compensation must be paid directly to the resident and not applied to her accounts unless she requests this.

Undertake a survey of the repairs outstanding to the resident’s kitchen window. This survey must consider any secondary damage caused by water ingress or draughts. This survey must be sent to the resident and this Service, along with a schedule of works. The works must be fully completed within two weeks of receipt of the survey.

Within 6 weeks of the date of this determination the landlord is ordered to conduct a case review. The case review must:
1. Outline the reasons for delays to completing the repairs to the resident’s kitchen window and intercom system.
2. Outline the reasons why the landlord did not identify the resident’s initial complaint or progress it in line with its policy.
3. Outline why the landlord did not consider the resident’s concerns about kitchen ventilation following its suggestion to screw the windows shut.
4. Identify why the resident had to chase for updates to the repairs on numerous occasions.
5. Identify what organisational learning is required to prevent a reoccurrence of the failings in this report. This must be structured as an action plan, clearly showing how the landlord will implement the learning in a period not exceeding a further 6 weeks.

Recommendations

The landlord should:
1. Provide refresher training to complaint handling staff to ensure that they can correctly identify complaints made and escalate these in line with the landlord’s policy.