We are updating our systems this weekend. You will be unable to submit an online complaint form from Friday 3 April until Monday 6 April.

Normal services will resume on Tuesday 7 April.

Thank you for your patience.

Basildon Borough Council (202332333)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202332333

Basildon Borough Council

16 September 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

  1. The complaint is about:
    1. The landlord’s management of repairs at the property.
    2. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

Background

  1. The resident has a secure tenancy which began on 19 April 2021. The property in question is a three-bed house.
  2. In November 2022, the resident contacted the landlord through its customer services team and reported that she had several repairs outstanding at the property. The landlord liaised with its contractor and agreed to carry out an inspection on 6 December 2022 to identify any outstanding works.
  3. In June 2023, the resident contacted the landlord about a recent air test it had carried out due to asbestos tiles in the property. During that contact, she said she wished to raise a complaint due to outstanding works at the property. The landlord contacted its contractor and asked for updates on any outstanding works, in an attempt to avoid a complaint. It did not receive a response.
  4. On 12 July 2023, the resident raised a stage 1 complaint due to several outstanding works at the property. The resident referenced numerous works that she said she had been told would be completed since she moved into the property.
  5. The landlord provided its stage 1 response on 2 August 2023 and partially upheld the complaint. It included a detailed response for each of the repairs that the resident had mentioned within the complaint. It said that there were flooring and electrical works scheduled within the next few weeks but no other works were planned. It acknowledged that it had failed to follow up on concerns around the windows and doors from May 2022 and said it should have also followed up on a visit from April 2023 about a radiator. It said that the other works mentioned had not been reported to it, or it was not responsible for repairing them. The landlord agreed to carry out an inspection to identify any outstanding issues on 4 August 2023.
  6. Following the inspection, the landlord agreed to carry out several of the repairs identified. However, the resident was still chasing outstanding repairs in October 2023. A further stage 1 complaint was then raised on 30 October 2023, as the resident disputed information provided by the landlord about some of those works.
  7. The landlord provided a stage 1 response on 6 November 2023 but did not uphold the complaint. It said it could find no record of the majority of the issues being raised with it. The response also provided details of previous appointments and works orders that the resident had raised questions about in her complaint. Within its response, the landlord said that the contractor would schedule appointments for an investigation of the matters in dispute and notify her of the dates.
  8. The resident escalated her complaint to stage 2 as she said that there were still outstanding works at the property. The landlord provided a stage 2 response on 7 December 2023 and did not uphold the complaint. It said that it had asked for confirmation of the works that the resident felt were outstanding during its investigation but did not receive this information. The landlord said that it was only aware of one remaining repair at the property and this was scheduled for 18 December 2023. Following the stage 2 response, the resident brought the complaint to this Service as she disagreed with the landlord’s response.
  9. The landlord has since carried out an inspection of the property on 6 August 2024. Several recommendations were made for repairs, some of these were issues raised within the resident’s complaints.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s management of repairs at the property

  1. The landlord first missed the opportunity to address the resident’s concerns about outstanding repairs in November 2022. She had already raised those concerns and the landlord had agreed that its contractor would carry out an inspection on 6 December 2022. The resident said that she had an inspection around this time but the landlord said that it had no record of this inspection taking place. Although the resident said that works were discussed, no works orders were raised by the landlord at this time.
  2. It is evident from its repair log that the landlord did not raise a works order for the inspection. This lack of any record of the inspection meant that if it did not go ahead, there was then no record or evidence of it being outstanding. This lack of adequate oversight of the agreed visit and any potentially required works left the resident waiting on repairs that she considered important. This is service failing which likely caused distress and inconvenience to the resident.
  3. In April 2023, the landlord failed to act on follow on notes from a works order. An operative had attended to complete a specific repair but identified that a number of other works were required first. Their notes asked that a surveyor attend to assess and arrange the required works. However, no inspection was raised and the repairs to a radiator and the surrounding wall were not completed. This is a further service failing by the landlord, again demonstrating a lack of management and oversight of its works orders.
  4. It is clear that the landlord then missed a further opportunity to address the resident’s overall concerns and potentially avoid complaints in June 2023, after the resident once again questioned outstanding repairs. Although it contacted the contractor for updates, the landlord did not follow up on this request when it did not receive information back. Given the lack of any response, the resident subsequently raised a stage 1 complaint on 12 July 2023.
  5. Within the resident’s complaint, she referenced 9 different repairs that she considered outstanding. The landlord had works scheduled for only 2 of the repairs listed in the complaint. It did provide details of previous repairs to most of those listed and said that it had not received further reports of them requiring repair. In resolution to the complaint, it offered to attend on 4 August 2023 and carry out an inspection of the repairs listed in the complaint. Given the number of repairs and ongoing nature of the complaint, this was a reasonable proposal to try and bring some clarity to the situation. 
  6. Following that inspection, several works orders were raised and the landlord scheduled follow on works at the property. However, it is clear from the report that not all of the works from the complaint were considered, as they were not mentioned within it. This meant that despite some works orders being raised, the resident was then required to chase the other works that had not been considered. This is another service failing by the landlord as it did not ensure that each of the repairs was assessed during its inspection. This added further to the resident’s frustration and the overall distress and inconvenience caused.
  7. Although some works were completed, the resident then had to chase the others that she had previously questioned. Once again, the landlord requested updates from the contractor, did not receive them and the resident had to chase again. Although the landlord did provide a response on 27 October 2023, it said that the majority of the works had not been reported to it. In response, it said it had asked the contractor to contact her and arrange dates for those works.
  8. Despite its response, the resident raised a stage 1 complaint on 30 October 2023. She explained that she felt the information provided was not accurate and said she would provide evidence to dispute it. The resident provided information that day, including screenshots of text messages related to jobs that were disputed as having been reported. Within its stage 1 response, the landlord reiterated its position on the works and said that the contractor would contact her to arrange for any outstanding repairs. However, no further works orders were raised and no visits took place following its response.
  9. Following the escalation of the complaint to stage 2 shortly after, the landlord asked that the resident provide a list of the works she considered outstanding. Given that the resident had already provided this at stage 1, it was unreasonable for the landlord to make this request when it had not completed any repairs since. It was already aware of the repairs she considered outstanding and, if any of these were in doubt, this could have been cleared up if it had taken the action it proposed in its response. Instead, no further action was taken and the landlord did not attend the property. Had it done so, it could have either identified any required works, or it could have provided the resident with an explanation of its position around those repairs.
  10. Since the complaint was brought to this Service, the resident continued to chase the repairs with the landlord. On 6 August 2024, an inspection took place at the resident’s property. Following that inspection, several recommendations were made which included at least 4 of the repairs that formed part of the resident’s complaints. These findings show that during the period in question, the landlord failed to manage these repairs and the resident’s concerns. This is a significant service failing by the landlord, as it did not act on the resident’s requests for repairs. The resident’s frustrations and distress around the situation are clear throughout her contacts with the landlord but it failed to act upon them.
  11. It is clear that throughout this period, the landlord failed to carry out works at the resident’s property, despite her requests. It continued to demonstrate a significant lack of oversight of proposed works and inspections, meaning the resident was continually left chasing updates. Prior to the complaint being brought to this Service, the landlord missed 3 significant opportunities to identify and carry out the required repairs. Had it ensured that inspections and related required works took place, the resident’s repairs could have been completed much sooner. Rather than the landlord and contractor working together seamlessly, there was a disconnect between the two which was ultimately to the detriment of the resident. Having considered the failings in this process, the Ombudsman makes a finding of maladministration.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint

  1. When the resident raised a second complaint about outstanding repairs in October 2023, the landlord treated this as a separate complaint. Although it was outside of the 28 days that the landlord specifies in its complaint policy for an escalation, it was essentially the same complaint. It is the view of the Ombudsman that discretion could have been used and this could have been treated as a stage 2 complaint escalation, rather than a new complaint.
  2. When the landlord addressed the stage 1 complaint on 6 November 2023, it did provide a response to each of the repairs referenced by the resident. However, its investigation at this stage was not sufficient, as several of these repairs were noted as having not been reported previously, despite them forming part of previous contacts or complaints from the resident. It is not reasonable for it to just provide the responses that it had received from the contractor, when it had access to records which would have shown that the issues had been raised before. This is a further service failing by the landlord which, as is evident from the resident’s responses, caused significant frustration as she had reported those issues before.
  3. Within the landlord’s complaint policy, it describes its stage 2 process as a review of the initial complaint and associated decision. However, when it provided its stage 2 response, it overlooked the main reason for the escalation –  that it had not carried out its own proposed actions from stage 1. Instead, it focused on the resident having not provided a list of works she felt were outstanding, despite there having been no such request until after she had escalated the complaint to stage 2.
  4. When concluding its stage 2 response, the landlord said that if the resident provided a list of the outstanding repairs it would “of course investigate”. Had the landlord contacted the resident during its investigation, it could have established what was outstanding and provided a full investigation based on that information. This displays a reluctance by the landlord to seek sufficient information as part of its investigation process, as well as overlooking that the resident had already provided the information it was asking for.
  5. The landlord’s response demonstrates a lack of adequate investigation or understanding of the reason for the resident’s escalation. The resident was left in a worse position for having made the escalation request as, by the end of it, the landlord had removed the proposal for its contractor to attend and arrange the required works. This was a service failing, as escalating the complaint was effectively detrimental to the resident. The resident then had to seek an independent review from this Service when the landlord could and, given that has since agreed to those works, should have met her desired resolution.
  6. Ultimately, the landlord failed to handle the resident’s complaints adequately. After initially providing a reasonable resolution to the initial complaint, it failed to follow through on its proposals, which led to another complaint. When this was raised, the landlord made a similar resolution offer, which it again failed to follow up on. When the resident chased this once again and escalated the complaint, the landlord failed to acknowledge those failings and left the resident in the same situation that she had started. When considering the failings in the management of this process, the Ombudsman makes a finding of maladministration.  

Determination (decision)

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s management of repairs at the property.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

Orders

  1. The landlord should provide a written apology to the resident within 28 days of the date of this report.
  2. Within 28 days of this report, the landlord is ordered to make a compensation payment of £700 to the resident, this is made up of:
  1. £500 for the distress and inconvenience caused by its management of repairs at the property;

 

  1. £200 for the time and trouble caused by its handling of her complaints.
  1. The landlord must provide a list detailing all works/repairs that were identified following its inspection on 6 August 2024. This should include any dates for works/repairs that have since been arranged and likely timescales for any others. The landlord should also provide a singular point of contact for the resident to use until those works are completed. This should be provided to the resident within 28 days of the date of this report.
  2. The landlord must reply to this Service with evidence of compliance with these orders within the timescales set out above.