London Borough of Tower Hamlets (202402903)

Background

1. The property is within a high-rise block. In 2022, a broken bedroom window was reported to the landlord. There were reported delays with completing relevant repairs, which led to this complaint. The resident sublets their property to a tenant but for ease of reference they will still be referred to as “the resident” in this report. The resident reported that their tenant’s household included young children.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s response to the:
   1. Resident’s concerns about the length of time taken to repair a broken window.
   2. Associated complaint.

Our decision (determination)

3. We found that there was:
   1. Reasonable redress offered by the landlord in response to the resident’s concerns about the length of time taken to repair a broken window.
   2. Maladministration for the landlords handling of the complaint.

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

Summary of reasons

4. The landlord acknowledged the significant delays in completing the repairs and its failure to provide regular updates. It apologised and offered compensation proportionate to its failings.
5. The landlord did not comply with the response timeframes set out in the Code and its own complaints procedure. However, it did apologise for the delays and explained the reasons for this. In addition, it did not address the safety concerns within its response and could have provided more support to the resident with their service charge queries.

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.

Recommendation

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.

6. The resident has mentioned additional concerns related to a boiler and safety gate. These matters will not be included within this investigation. This is because we can only investigate issues which have exhausted the landlord’s formal complaint process. We have not seen evidence the landlord has had the opportunity to address these concerns.
7. The resident told the landlord that service charges for the time period the window repair was outstanding should be waived. This is not a remedy we can provide. Under the terms of the lease agreement, service charges must still be paid even if there has been a service failure by the landlord. However, the landlord can offer other remedies, such as compensation where service failures occur. Leaseholders may dispute their liability to pay for any service charges which they feel are unreasonable, by approaching the First Tier Tribunal (FTT).
8. The resident has requested compensation for a damaged internal wall. This Service cannot determine whether the landlord is liable for the damage caused. Liability issues are better suited to court. Therefore, the resident can either seek independent advice or claim on their own insurance policy or via the landlord’s insurance policy if this is something they wish to pursue further.
9. We also cannot consider concerns relating to distress and inconvenience experienced by the resident’s tenants. Nor can we comment on the safety issues raised in respect of those tenants. This is because the resident’s tenant does not have a direct contractual relationship with the landlord.
10. The landlord’s repair policy says routine repairs will be completed within 20 working days. It also says works which require items to be manufactured like doors and windows will not be considered as a responsive repair and may take longer to complete. The landlord’s policy does not set out a specific timeframe for repairs of this nature. However, it does say that residents will be informed if work is likely to take longer or be delayed.
11. In total, the repairs took approximately 17 months to complete. The landlord acknowledged there were significant delays and provided a detailed explanation of the reasons for this. It recognised the poor service it had provided and that the resident had had to chase it up on multiple occasions.
12. When there are service failings by a landlord, as is the case here, the Ombudsman will consider whether the redress offered by the landlord put things right and resolved the resident’s complaint satisfactorily in the circumstances. In considering this, we take into account whether the landlord’s offer of redress was in line with our Dispute Resolution Principles; be fair, put things right and learn from outcomes. 
13. The landlord acted fairly by acknowledging its failings in handling the repair. It apologised for the length of time it took to repair the window and for the service failures the resident experienced. It sought to put things right by offering compensation for the delays, the resident’s time and trouble, and the distress and inconvenience caused. This shows it considered the impact on the resident, but this was mitigated by the fact that the resident did not live at the property themselves.
14. The landlord has also said it would request refresher training to its planning team and remind its staff and contractors about the importance of maintaining clear and accurate records and providing regular updates to residents. These actions demonstrated a commitment to learning and to improving its future service.
15. Therefore, we consider the landlord’s final offer of £650 compensation was proportionate to the failings identified. It was in line with our remedy’s guidance where there was a failure which adversely affected the resident, but this did not cause any permanent detriment to them.

16. The Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code) March 2022, which applied at the time of this complaint, required landlords to respond to stage 1 and 2 complaints within 10 and 20 working days, respectively.
17. The landlord took 12 days to respond at stage 1. At stage 2, although the landlord initially explained there would be a delay of 30 working days to respond, it failed to provide any further updates once the extended deadline had passed. There was a lack of communication and the resident was caused avoidable time and trouble in chasing its stage 2 response.
18. In total, the landlord took 128 working days to respond to the complaint at stage 2. This was significantly outside the Code’s timeframe. In its response, the landlord explained there were staffing issues in the complaint team and apologised for the delay. Whilst it was positive that the landlord provided an explanation, this alone did not justify such a lengthy delay. The landlord should also have explained what measures it would be taking to avoid similar delays and improve complaint handling response times in the future. It could also have considered whether redress above an apology could have been offered to reflect the inconvenience caused by such a lengthy delay.
19. Within the landlord’s complaint responses, it suggested that the resident speak to its leasehold service team about paying the service charges. It would have been better practise for the landlord to arrange for the leasehold services team to contact the resident directly, as this may have provided earlier support and clearer guidance.
20. The landlord failed to address all concerns raised within the escalation request, particularly regarding the safety concerns. As a result, it missed an opportunity to review whether it should have done more to consider any potential safety concerns and whether there was any potential learning as a result. The fact it did not address all the issues raised meant its response was not Code compliant.
21. Within the landlord’s stage 2 response, it offered compensation in part for the delays experienced. It was not clear whether it was referring to the delays in completing the repairs or the delays in its complaints handling. In addition, the resident chased up a response to the stage 2 complaint several times, but we cannot see if the landlord considered the specific impact of this. For these reasons, the landlord should pay compensation of £100.

Learning

Knowledge information management (record keeping) and Communication

22. It was positive that the landlord arranged refresher training for staff and contractors. This shows its commitment to improving its service in the future.
23. It would be beneficial for the landlord to provide clear breakdowns of any compensation offers it makes in the future. This helps to ensure transparency in its decision making and allows it to evidence whether the amount of redress it has attributed to each identified failing is proportionate.
24. The landlord can gain further insight on what is expected when dealing with safety concerns in the Ombudsman’s open letter to chief executives on window repairs issued in June 2024. A copy of the letter can be found here Window guidance | Housing Ombudsman.