Babergh District Council (202338266)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202338266

Babergh District Council

30 October 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 handling of the resident’s reports regarding:
1. Window repairs and the ventilation system.
2. Anti-social behaviour and noise disturbance.
The Ombudsman has considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

The resident has a secure tenancy with the landlord that started on 30 March 2009.
The property is described as a 2-bedroom bungalow.
The resident has informed this Service that she has a brain tumour.
The resident made an online report about anti-social behaviour on 1 June 2022. The resident described different types of noise disturbance by her neighbour (such as drunken rowdy behaviour) and that the noise levels caused her to leave her home. The resident described feeling intimidated and vulnerable.
On 22 August 2022 a repair was raised for the living room window. An operative attended on 14 September 2022 and completed the repair. The landlord’s records do not provide any further information.
On 14 September 2022 a purchase order for the landlord’s window contractor was updated to £950. The landlord’s records show that social services had sent in a referral for an alternative window opener.
There is a gap in the landlord’s records until 14 September 2023 – the notes show that the living room window had no seal, causing water ingress during periods of heavy rain. The resident said that the living room window had been inspected on several occasions with no resolution.
On 27 September 2023, the resident complained about the landlord’s delay in responding to her request for:
1. The missing seal to the living room window to be replaced. This had been outstanding since 2018.
2. The ventilation system to the property to be turned off.
3. The reported anti-social behaviour to be investigated.
The landlord apologised to the resident on 27 October 2023 for the complaint handling delays. It explained that her anti-social behaviour complaint was being investigated by the council’s environmental health team and this was ongoing.
The landlord sent an undated complaint response, presumed to be sent on 19 March 2024, acknowledging its conversation with the resident on 4 March 2024. The landlord advised that the resident had made an anti-social behaviour report on 4 September 2023 and it was aware that her concerns remained unresolved. The landlord concluded that it would close the resident’s complaint as she had escalated her concerns to this Service. It would also contact the resident regarding a plan of action to resolve the outstanding repairs.
The resident remained dissatisfied and escalated her complaint on 19 March 2024.
The landlord subsequently provided its undated final complaint response, presumed to be sent on 23 April 2024. The landlord said:
1. Windows
  1. It had completed a repair to the window on 14 September 2022.
  2. After that date, it did not receive another repair request.
  3. During the complaint process, the resident informed the landlord that she did not want the window repaired but replaced.
  4. It was not replacing the window. It would arrange for the seal to the window to be replaced.
  5. It provided the contact details for the resident to request the replacement window seal.
2. Ventilation system
  1. It agreed that its contractor had attended the property and refused to disconnect the ventilation system as the contractor had not installed it.
  2. It had arranged for another contractor to attend who had also refused to disconnect the ventilation system.
  3. The ventilation system was installed to assist with the air flow around the property.
  4. The resident had advised on 7 December 2023 that the ventilation system was disconnected.
3. Anti-social behaviour
  1. The environmental health team was investigating the resident’s complaint. The investigation officer had apologised for the delays and a mistake regarding the opening of the anti-social behaviour complaint.
  2. A delay occurred as the resident’s report of anti-social behaviour had been incorrectly added to a case being handled by the tenancy team. For this, it apologised and stated the investigation officer had since been in contact with the resident.
  3. The resident’s report that a dog owned by her neighbour had bitten her was considered a police matter. The police were investigating the resident’s report. The resident had confirmed that the dog was removed from the neighbour’s property. However, it was aware another dog was present.
  4. The council had requested that the resident complete diary sheets. It requested that she do so to allow an assessment of the reported noise levels.
4. Complaint handling
  1. Apologised for the delays that the resident experienced and that she had needed to contact this Service to obtain its complaint response.
  2. A complaint improvement session was being hosted on 29 April 2024 to improve investigations and progression of complaints.
  3. Feedback from residents would be used.
5. Conclusion
  1. The complaint was upheld and the landlord confirmed that the living room window would not be replaced.
  2. It awarded £300 compensation. This was broken down as: £250 for the 4 months delay in the ventilation system repair and 2 months delay for the thermostat repair. £50 was awarded for its complaint handling failures at both stages of the complaint process.

Events after the complaint process ended

The resident emailed the landlord on 26 June 2024, expressing her dissatisfaction with its complaint response. The resident disputed that she did not agree to the window repair. Furthermore, an occupational therapist had advised that if the living room window were to be replaced, the landlord could install French doors which would give the resident access to the garden. The team leader who had visited in September 2023 had stated that he was aware of the referral from the occupational therapist and would support the recommendations. The resident also disputed the landlord’s assertion that the window repair had been completed.
The landlord responded to the resident on 16 July 2024, advising that the compensation had been calculated in line with its compensation policy. It agreed to resolve the outstanding repair to the window and review the occupational therapist report regarding the request for French doors.
The resident remained dissatisfied and escalated her complaint to this Service. She informed us on 10 October 2024 that she had made a new complaint to the landlord regarding the living room window repair/replacement.

Jurisdiction

What we can and cannot consider is the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. This is governed by the Housing Ombudsman Scheme. When a complaint is brought to the Ombudsman, we must consider all the circumstances of the case as there are sometimes reasons why a complaint will not be investigated.
In accordance with paragraph 42(j) of the Scheme, the Ombudsman may not consider complaints which, in our opinion, fall properly within the jurisdiction of another Ombudsman, regulator or complaint-handling body.
After carefully considering all the evidence, we have determined that the resident’s complaint about anti-social behaviour and noise disturbance is outside the jurisdiction of the Ombudsman.
The council’s anti-social behaviour policy says that landlords will not lead on complaints about harassment, intimidation, noise nuisance, threatening behaviour and verbal abuse. Such reports made by the resident were investigated by the council’s environmental health team. During the complaint process, the environmental health team apologised to the resident for the delays experienced and communicated with her regarding their investigation of her reports of anti-social behaviour and noise disturbance.
The Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman has the jurisdiction to consider complaints about how the council handled the resident’s reports of anti-social behaviour. It is therefore appropriate for the resident to seek a determination from the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

The resident said that the window repair has been ongoing for several years and she has been raising this with the landlord since 2018. However, there is no evidence that, at that time, any formal complaints were raised by the resident and exhausted the complaint process and/or were brought to the Ombudsman.
The Ombudsman understands that this complaint was logged in September 2023. This investigation report will therefore consider events from August 2022 onwards on the basis of what the Ombudsman considers to be a reasonable period in light of the provisions of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme and the available evidence.
As such, whilst this report may reference historical events for context, the scope this investigation will be limited to consideration of the landlord’s handling of the window repair from August 2022 onwards up until the final complaint response on 23 April 2024.
The resident has informed this Service that she has made a new complaint to the landlord regarding the repair/replacement of the window. As the new complaint has not exhausted the landlord’s formal complaint process, it will not be considered as part of this report. Were the resident to remain dissatisfied with the landlord’s new final complaint response, she may then bring that complaint to this Service for consideration.
During the complaint process, the resident made service requests regarding the leaking shower door, defects to the kitchen floor and the cover to external vents. The landlord has carried out repairs to the shower door, kitchen floor and to the vents. If the resident remains dissatisfied with the repairs completed by the landlord, she can make a complaint to the landlord about those matters.

Repair to the window and ventilation system

The Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles are:
1. be fair;
2. put things right;
3. learn from outcomes.
This Service will apply these principles when considering whether any redress is appropriate and proportionate for any maladministration or service failure identified.
Each repair has been considered in turn below which was the subject of the resident’s complaint.

Window repair

Landlords have an obligation to maintain the home to a reasonable standard and respond to reports of repairs in a reasonable timeframe. Once a landlord is informed of deterioration in a property, it is ‘on notice’ to carry out a reasonable enquiry to determine the cause of, and complete, a repair. What is a reasonable timeframe will depend on the circumstances of a case.
The landlord attended on 14 September 2022 to respond to the resident’s window repair report. The landlord’s records do not show the repair that was carried out. Nevertheless, on the same day, a job was raised to repair the beading to the living room window or provide a quote to replace the window. This job is still showing as open and incomplete. This is unreasonable as the landlord is responsible for keeping the window in repair and reported repairs should be completed within its published timescales of completing routine repairs within 20 working days.
Another failure is that the following month (October 2022), a repair was raised to supply and fit a new living room window. The available evidence does not explain why the landlord decided that the window could not be repaired and should be replaced. This is unreasonable as there is no evidence that the earlier quote was acted on or that action was taken to carry out the repairs and/or renewal.
There is a gap in the landlord’s records until 14 September 2023 when the resident reported the impact of the lack of living room window seals despite 3 inspections having been carried out. The resident advised of water ingress when it rained and said that the property was not insulated which increased her utility bills.
A further record keeping failure occurred when the team leader who visited the property on 23 September 2023 did not make any notes of the discussion with the resident or the property condition. The resident maintains that at the visit, although the replacement of the living room window with French doors was discussed, she did not say that she would not allow the repair. The resident also raised new repairs regarding seals to the shower door and defects to the kitchen door. The absence of the landlord’s notes means that this investigation cannot conclude with certainty what was discussed and agreed with the resident.
The landlord identified on 12 October 2023 that it could not locate an occupational therapist report. It assessed that if it requested a new report, this would delay the window repair. The available information shows that the landlord did not consider obtaining a copy of the report either from the occupational therapist or from the resident to assist with its decision making. This is unreasonable as its inaction caused delay and frustration to the resident.
In its final complaint response, the landlord disputed the length of time that the window was faulty, stating that it had carried out a repair in September 2022. It added that, following the visit from the team leader, the resident refused for the repairs to be completed as she wanted the window replaced. Under the terms of the tenancy agreement, the resident has a responsibility to allow access for repairs to be carried out. The resident disputes that she refused the repair, advising that she was waiting for the landlord to reach a decision following the discussion regarding the replacement window.
The landlord’s final complaint response provided the contact details for the resident to confirm if she wished for the repair to be carried out. This was unreasonable as the landlord held an outstanding living room window repair open for over a year at the time of the complaint response. Therefore, the landlord should have acted within its customer service standards to arrange a mutually convenient appointment. Also, the landlord is responsible for ensuring that the structure is maintained by carrying out required repairs. There is no evidence that the landlord acted in accordance with its obligations.
In summary, the landlord’s records show that it has an obligation to assess and carry out the necessary repairs to the living room window to keep the property wind and watertight. There is little evidence that it did so. The repair remains outstanding so the resident has experienced a significant delay despite her concerns about draughts and water ingress.

Ventilation system

This Service’s spotlight report on damp and mould (October 2021) reminds landlords of their obligations under the Homes (Fitness for Human Habitation) Act 2018 to ensure that properties are adequately ventilated. Reasonable steps should be taken with residents to make certain this is achieved to prevent the property being “sealed.”
The resident requested in September 2023 that the landlord disconnect the ventilation system to stop it blowing out cold air. In response, the landlord arranged for 2 of its contractors to attend the resident’s property. The precise dates are not shown in the landlord’s records. However, by the end of September 2023, both contractors had apparently attended and refused to switch off the ventilation system.
The contractors advised the landlord that they would not recommend disconnection of the ventilation system. The contractors explained that the ventilation system was installed to manage air flow within the property. Therefore, if the landlord intended to disconnect, it should consult with the original supplier. The landlord’s records note that the original supplier was no longer operating.
Following the resident chasing the landlord to respond to her disconnection request, it considered servicing the system. However, there is no evidence that it did so. This is not reasonable as this may have resolved the resident’s dissatisfaction with the operation of the ventilation system. It also may have resolved the reported issues such as cold air blowing out of the system.
Without any further diagnosis of the reason for the cold air being circulated throughout the property, in October 2023, the landlord decided to turn the motor off using an isolation switch. This was completed by the end of November 2023. This was not reasonable as the landlord has not evidenced that it considered the advice from the 2 specialist companies that it commissioned. In addition, the landlord has not evidenced that it took steps to assess whether switching off the ventilation system was the appropriate action to take. Neither has it evidenced that it considered how it proposed to mitigate the risk of unintended consequences through the restriction of air flow in the property.
In its final complaint response, the landlord acknowledged the purpose of the ventilation unit to the property for the management of damp and mould. However, the available evidence shows that once it disabled the ventilation system, it did not give the resident information on managing air flow. This was a missed opportunity and unreasonable.
In its complaint response, the landlord made a compensation award of £250 for repairs, part of which was in recognition of separate delays with a thermostat repair. In any case, the £250 was insufficient (particularly given the further window repair faults set out below) and the landlord did not fully recognise its failings. In addition to the delay, and without diminishing the resident’s experiences, the landlord should have explored whether there were other actions it could take before it disconnected the ventilation system.

Repairs Summary

Overall, the Ombudsman has identified delays in the landlord completing repairs to the windows. Failings have also been identified in its decision to disconnect the ventilation system. For the identified service failures, a finding of maladministration has been made and additional compensation is warranted.

The Ombudsman has considered the landlord’s complaint handling

The landlord’s complaint policy says that it will respond within 10 working days at its first stage and within 20 working days at its final stage.
The resident complained to the landlord by phone in September 2023 and the landlord acknowledged the complaint on 27 September 2023. The landlord only responded on 19 March 2024, taking 121 working days to provide its initial complaint response.
The resident chased the landlord for its complaint response on 15 November 2023. The landlord responded on 21 November 2023 and 8 December 2023, explaining it was experiencing difficulty obtaining responses from other departments. This was unreasonable as the landlord did not act in line with the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code). The Code says that an extension request should not exceed 10 working days and a good reason should exist for the request.
The initial complaint response was poor, and did not address the resident’s concerns. The landlord did not provide the resident with its position on her complaint. Instead, it referred to the resident’s contact with this Service. Therefore, the landlord did not address the resident concerns about the window repair or the ventilation system. It did not indicate that an investigation had occurred during the 6 months it took to respond.
The resident escalated her complaint on 19 March 2024, providing information on her dissatisfaction with the complaint response. The resident also included new service requests about seals to the shower, air vents and trip hazards to the kitchen floor. The Housing Ombudsman Scheme sets out that we will not investigate complaints that have not completed a landlord’s formal complaint procedure. As these matters were not considered as part of the complaint to the landlord, if the resident remains dissatisfied with the related repairs, she can raise a new complaint.
The landlord provided an undated complaint response at the final stage of the complaint procedure. This is not reasonable as the landlord is responsible for ensuring an accurate and comprehensive response that demonstrates that the resident’s concerns have been taken seriously. From the available evidence, it is assumed that the response was sent to the resident on 23 April 2024. This meant the final complaint response was sent narrowly outside of its complaint handling timescale.
The landlord awarded £50 for its complaint handling delays. This was not reasonable or proportionate for the complaint handling failures experienced by the resident. An increased compensation award is warranted given the delay of almost 6 months in the complaints process.
Given the service failures identified above, a finding of maladministration has been made.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports regarding window repairs and the ventilation system.
In accordance with paragraph 42(j) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the resident’s complaint about anti-social behaviour is outside of our jurisdiction.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

Orders

Within 4 weeks of the date of this determination, the landlord is to:
1. Write to the resident to apologise for the service failures identified within this report.
2. Pay the resident £1,000 including the £300 compensation it awarded during the complaint process. This is broken down as:
  1. £750 in recognition of the distress and inconvenience caused by the failures in its handling of the resident’s reports regarding the window repairs and the ventilation system.
  2. £250 for its complaint handling delays.
If the landlord has already paid the £300 it awarded to the resident, it can offset this amount from the £1,000 ordered above and pay the remaining balance to the resident.
If it has not already done so, within 4 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord should arrange a mutually convenient inspection of the living room window. It should confirm in writing to the resident whether it intends to replace the seal to the window or replace the window itself. A copy of the letter is to be provided to this Service.
The landlord should provide this Service with evidence of compliance with these orders within the timescales set out above.