Norwich City Council (202421241)

Background

1. The resident was unhappy with how the landlord handled a leak in her property and the subsequent damages caused to her property. She said its staff had damaged her property while completing repairs. She said her disability was negatively impacted by the issue.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of:
   1. repairs and the resident’s reports of damage to the oven following a leak
   2. the associated complaint

Our decision (determination)

3. We have found the landlord responsible for:
   1. maladministration in its handling of repairs and the resident’s reports of damages following a leak
   2. maladministration for its complaint handling

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

Summary of reasons

The landlord’s handling of repairs and the resident’s reports of damages following a leak

4. The landlord completed works within its timeframes but communicated poorly throughout. It failed to check the quality of its work. It did not consider the potential impact on the resident when it knew she was vulnerable or whether it should adjust its approach to the work.

The complaint handling

5. The landlord failed to keep within its timelines. It did not address every issue the resident raised in her complaints.

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.

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

6. The resident mentioned water damage to her personal belongings as a result of the leak in her initial stage 1 complaint on 21 May 2023. When she raised a new stage 1 complaint on 6 November 2023, she did not mention the water damage to belongings and instead focused on damage to her oven by contractors. In the interest of fairness, we have not looked at the water damage to her belongings as a result. This is because the landlord needs to be given a fair opportunity to investigate and respond to all complaints at both stages of its internal complaints process prior to our involvement.
7. We cannot make liability decisions for the damage the resident reported. Such decisions may be made via the landlord’s liability insurance (if it has such cover in place), the resident’s own contents insurer, or via the courts. We cannot consider whether the resident should be compensated for damage to her oven. However, we have assessed how the landlord responded to the concerns raised.

What we have looked at

8. The landlord attended the initial report of a leak on the same day, 11 May 2023, within the 24-hour emergency timeframe set out in its Repairs Handbook. It showed that it understood the importance of resolving the issue as quickly as possible.
9. The landlord acknowledged there were delays in completing the repair until 16 May 2023 due to issues accessing the stopcock, which it said was hidden under paving slabs. It accepted this meant water was leaking persistently into the cavity wall until the water provider stopped the supply on 15 May 2023. It took steps to wet vacuum the floors of the property and gave the resident a dehumidifier to help dry out the property so follow on works could be completed. This was appropriate and showed it wanted to provide a lasting repair.
10. In its second stage 1 response from December 2023, the landlord said that it had completed all repairs by 21 July 2023. These included:
    1. stain blocking and redecorating in the kitchen and bedroom
    2. brushing staining from external brickwork
    3. removing and replacing window trims
    4. replacement of the vinyl floor in the kitchen
11. This was within the 60 days set out in the landlord’s Repairs Handbook. It was appropriate that it scheduled works as soon as it reasonably could and organised them to take place at a time that suited the resident.
12. The resident disputed that the repairs had been completed following the landlord’s attendance in July 2023. She said plastering and decoration had not been finished and the contractor had damaged her oven in the process of moving it and tried to conceal this. She reiterated these concerns in her formal complaints.
13. In its stage 2 response, the landlord committed to arranging a visit to the property by a surveyor to identify the works that the resident considered to be outstanding. This was appropriate and showed that it appreciated the concerns she had raised. It showed it wanted to resolve the issue and that it had a plan for how it would do this.
14. However, the landlord’s communication around the repairs was poor. The resident had to chase it for updates on the repairs works following the leak, and again after she raised concerns about works remaining incomplete. In an email on 30 August 2023, she said it had been 6 weeks since she had heard from the landlord. The landlord did not record that it spoke to her about the issue until she raised a further formal complaint on 6 November 2023.
15. The resident asked if she could have an individual point of contact during the repairs. The landlord did not respond to this request which was not reasonable. It missed an opportunity to understand that its communication was poor and causing frustration with its service. While it was not under an obligation to provide a single point of contact, its failure to consider the request and provide an explanation did not demonstrate it was customer focused.
16. The landlord acknowledged that it had failed to ask a supervisor to check the quality of works when they had been completed. When the resident raised this again in her stage 2 escalation, it failed to provide her with an explanation of its normal process. This was not appropriate and did not show that it had sufficient oversight of its repairs process. It should have been able to explain its normal approach, whether this involved the sign off from a supervisor and how it would ensure quality in the repairs it completed in her property. It is unclear whether the works were signed off by a supervisor at any point.
17. The landlord’s failure to ensure quality checks were completed also meant it could not respond to the resident’s concerns about damages caused to her oven by its contractor. She raised this issue again in her new complaint on 6 November 2023, saying it had not spoken to her about the damage. Our spotlight report on repairs notes the importance of conducting post-work quality checks as a way of strengthening trust between landlords and residents. It was unreasonable that it left her concerns about damages unchecked for a long time. She was not shown how it had satisfied itself that the damages had been sufficiently investigated.
18. The resident told the landlord that she had disabilities which impacted her mobility and reminded it of this in her initial complaint on 21 May 2023. She also made clear that she had asked for help moving furniture back to its original locations when repairs were completed as she would not be able to do this herself. The landlord did not acknowledge this in any of its responses to the resident. While it did not have a Vulnerable Residents policy in place at the time of the repair, it has since written a Vulnerability Framework which sets out its commitment to providing tailored help to individuals with additional needs.
19. It was unreasonable that the landlord failed to consider any adjustment to its service or show how it was seeking to accommodate her disability. Even without a policy in place, it should have acknowledged its responsibilities to her as a vulnerable tenant. It had known about her long term health conditions since at least 2015 and should have been able to apply this knowledge to its approach.
20. The landlord also failed to respond to the residents concerns about the impact that the repair had on her health. We cannot say if its actions directly caused a detrimental impact on health. These matters are better suited for consideration by a court where medical experts can assess evidence. We can look at whether the landlord meaningfully engaged with her concerns and the distress and inconvenience caused by any failings.
21. The landlord did not respond to the concerns the resident raised about her health being impacted. This was unreasonable. It should have acknowledged her worries and considered ways it could support her either through reasonable adjustments or by signposting her to relevant agencies. She was not shown that it was giving proper consideration to the potential impact of the situation on her health and wellbeing.
22. While the landlord was apologetic in its complaint responses, it did not go far enough. It is reasonable that an order of compensation is made to reflect the level of distress, inconvenience, time and trouble the resident faced throughout the process as a result of its failure to respond to all aspects of her complaints or to show it had considered the impact on her disability.

23. The landlord’s complaints policy is compliant with the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (“the Code.”)
24. As can be seen from above:
    1. the landlord gave its stage 1 response within 22 working days (6 November 2023 to 6 December 2023) which was not in line with the 10 days the Code allows
    2. the landlord gave its stage 2 response within 70 working days (11 December 2023 to 21 March 2024) which was not in line with the 20 days the Code allows
25. The landlord failed to keep to the timelines set out in its policy. It failed to ask for an extension to either of its response deadlines as the Code suggests. It was not appropriate that it knew the resident was concerned about timeliness and communication, but still failed to update her on delays in its complaint handling.
26. The complaint responses were detailed and relayed information from its repair records which was appropriate and ensured it was providing an accurate timeline of events.
27. However, it did not respond to all aspects of the complaint as it did not acknowledge the resident’s concerns about the impact of the situation on her disability. This was not appropriate. The Code says landlords must address all points raised in a complaint. Its failure to do so meant she was not shown her concerns about health and wellbeing had been properly considered.

Learning

28. The landlord’s approach to the repair was in line with policy but it missed opportunities to improve the resident’s experience of the process. It could reflect on how being clearer about its quality checking process and considering vulnerabilities would have resulted in better outcomes for the resident.

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

29. The landlord made good use of its repair records which were well maintained and provided clear information. It could consider whether improvements in its recording of the resident’s complaints would have resulted in keeping to its timelines more effectively.

Communication

30. Inconsistent communication resulted in time and trouble for the resident. The landlord could reflect on how it set out its approach to the repairs and quality checks and whether more consistent and regular conversation with the resident would have improved her experience.