City of Doncaster Council (202205052)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202205052

City of Doncaster Council

20 December 2023

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. Handling of the repair to the gable end wall of the property.
2. Response to the report of a bee infestation.
3. Handling of the formal complaint about the above matters.

Background and summary of events

Background and scope of investigation

The resident is a secure tenant of the landlord and lives in a 2 bedroom semi-detached house. The gable end wall is the side wall of the building which is 2 storeys.
A third party company acts as a managing agent for the property on behalf of the landlord. As the managing agent are acting on behalf of the landlord in delivering its duties, this report will refer to the managing agent as ‘the landlord’.
In 2015 the resident reported that pointing was loose in the area of the gable end wall where works had been carried out previously (approximately 2013). He formally complained to the landlord about the quality of the work it previously completed as he believed that the issue of the cement failing indicated that the work completed in 2013 was not done to a good standard.
The landlord provided a stage 1 response to the complaint in February 2015. It did not uphold the complaint but agreed to complete the repair to the loose pointing and completed this in or around May 2015.
In 2015 the resident also raised a query about an invoice the landlord paid for work to replace some of the roof tiles. In another stage 1 response to the resident on 2 March 2015 the landlord noted that a member of its staff had spoken with the resident about the matter.
In both stage 1 responses to the resident in 2015 the landlord provided information about how he could progress his complaint if he remained unhappy with its responses. There is no evidence of the resident requesting the escalation of either complaint.
The resident has mentioned to this Service that we should consider his complaint in 2015 when reviewing this case. He believes that his 2015 complaint demonstrates that the landlord has fraudulently recorded jobs instead of raising recalls for the work previously completed to the gable end wall. Specifically, the resident has referenced the invoice that he queried in 2015 for the roof tile replacement work. He believes that the amount from that invoice was used to pay for the repair completed to the gable end wall in 2015.
Under the provisions of the Scheme the Ombudsman may not investigate complaints that are made prior to having exhausted the landlord’s internal complaints procedure. While we acknowledge the resident’s concerns we will not be investigating the landlord’s responses to his complaints in 2015 as part of this investigation. These complaints did not exhaust the landlord’s internal complaints procedure and the resident had the opportunity to progress his concerns about those matters in 2015 and did not. The matters are therefore considered historical.
This investigation will consider the landlord’s response to the issue raised about the gable end wall from 1 June 2022 because prior to this date, there is no evidence of any repairs being reported to the wall for 7 years. We may reference the historical repairs carried out to the wall to provide context to the repair raised on 1 June 2022. But as above, no assement will be made about how those historical repairs were completed or funded.

Summary of events

On 1 June 2022 the resident called the landlord to report that bees were getting into the property through a hole within the brickwork next to his bathroom window, located on the gable end wall of his property. He said that the repair had been reported 6 times previously. The resident was advised by the landlord that he would be responsible for arranging pest control to attend to the bees. The landlord recorded on its notes that the resident was not happy and said he was going to approach his Councillor.
On the same day the landlord raised a formal complaint. It sent an acknowledgment letter to the resident which stated its understanding was that the complaint concerned repairs to the roof.
The landlord provided its stage 1 response on 13 June 2022. It confirmed that work to the roof had been scheduled to take place in August 2022 but unfortunately, it did not have the capacity to move the work forward. In relation to the reported infestation it explained that it previously reimbursed residents who had to pay for a second pest control visit due to the poor condition of the property brickwork, pointing or roof component. It said that on checking its repair records dating back as far as 2 years prior, there had been no previous reports of bees. The landlord advised that it was experiencing a high volume of repairs and was working through a back log due to the effects of COVID-19.
The resident responded to the landlord on the same day and stated that it was not the roof he reported repairs for but the concrete to the gable end wall. He said that the same issue had been raised to the landlord before on several occasions. He specified that there were parts where no cement had been applied and as a result there were holes in the cavity which he stated allowed bees to build a nest next to his bathroom window. The resident explained that it was the landlord who caused the issue and it should rectify it. He requested an escalation of the complaint and asked the landlord to investigate the work to the gable end wall and not the roof.
On 16 June 2022 the resident wrote to the landlord again reiterating that he wanted to escalate the complaint. He said that he wanted to add that the landlord had not investigated his original complaint properly and he believed this was to hide incompetencies.
On 13 July 2022 the resident contacted us and said he had not heard from the landlord about his stage 2 complaint. We wrote to the landlord on the same day and requested that it provide its response to the resident.
The landlord acknowledged the escalation request on 15 July 2022. It provided its final response on 22 July 2022. It concluded that the procedure had been followed in relation to the bees nesting. It noted that advice was given by the local council’s pest control that the nest could not be moved until nesting season was over. It said that until the nest removal was complete it could not complete the repair to the wall. Regarding the repair to the gable end wall the landlord said that after it completed work in 2015 it did not receive another report about the area until June 2022. It repeated that the repair was scheduled to take place in August 2022 and noted that it was trying to get the repair addressed promptly.
The landlord said that it did not uphold the complaint based on the information it had reviewed. It acknowledged that the resident had raised issues dating back more than 6 months before and said it would not address such because he had the opportunity to raise those issues sooner. The landlord apologised for the delay in logging the escalation request.
On 27 July 2022 the resident wrote to the landlord after receiving a recording of the call he made to the landlord on 1 June 2022. He reiterated that he did not mention his roof but had stated that brickwork and cement was falling from the gable end wall in the conversation. He stated that the landlord had incorrectly described the repair in the same way it had in 2015. The resident explained his belief that the landlord was manipulating its records to cover up poor working practices and failures by management in the repairs to the gable end wall. He mentioned that he believed the landlord was invoicing fake jobs to pay for recalls for the works to the wall because its contractors were not competent.
This Service has seen indication that the landlord wrote to its residents in August and September 2022 to notify that the repairs it had planned to complete by August 2022 had been suspended until it agreed a recovery plan to deliver the outstanding work. The outstanding work included the repair to the resident’s wall. In October 2022 the landlord wrote to the resident with an update saying that it was looking to appoint a contractor to complete the pending repair to the property. In November 2022 it wrote to him again, confirmed the contractor and advised the resident to expect to hear from the contractor with details about the work to be completed and a start date.
On 2 December 2022 the resident called the landlord to chase the pointing repair. The landlord advised him the job was on its system and was allocated to a contractor to be done when they were next in his area. In June 2023 the landlord booked the repair to be completed on 17 August 2023.

Assessment and findings

The tenancy agreement

The tenancy agreement confirms that the resident is responsible for reporting any infestations (including wasps nest) in the property to the local council’s pest control team. The resident is responsible for the charges relating to the removal and treatment of the infestation.

Repairs and Maintenance Policy

The policy describes responsive repairs as those repairs that are carried out to repair existing features or items of the property that are detrimental to the health and/or wellbeing of the resident or the property. In addition to responsive repairs the policy describes scheduled repairs as those repairs that are required but are not causing danger to the health of those living in the property or the building and can be defined as inconvenient.
Scheduled repairs are completed at set times of the year, in set areas of the borough. They are completed on average in 3 months but no more than 5 months depending on when they are reported. The policy notes scheduled repairs include pointing brickwork.

The landlord’s handling of the repairs to the gable end wall.

On review of the information on the case we have found maladministration in the landlord’s response to the repair to the gable end wall.
The resident reported the repair on 1 June 2023. When making the report he provided details to suggest that the brickwork needed repointing. The landlord took the appropriate steps at the time the report was made and raised a repair for the repointing of the brickwork on the same day. This was in line with its repair responsibilities within the tenancy agreement for the structure and exterior of the property.
In accordance with the repairs and maintenance policy as the repair was described to be for the re–pointing it was reasonable for the landlord to categorise the repair as a scheduled repair.
In its responses to the complaint the landlord explained to the resident that it could not complete the repair until he arranged for the removal of the nest. It explained that the advice given by the local council’s pest control was to wait until nesting season was over to remove the nest. This advice is in line with that provided by the British Pest Control Association (BPCA). Based on the guidance provided by the BPCA, nesting season for bees would have been over after the summer season (September 2022).
We will review the landlord’s response to the bee infestation separately in this report but it was reasonable for the landlord to suggest the removal of the nest before any works were carried out to the pointing. Doing so meant the bees left the nest themselves after the season before any works that may have disturbed them went ahead. This is a humane approach and in line with the BPHA’s advise to leave the bees alone where possible.
Because of the resident’s report that he considered the cause of the infestation to be due to the defective pointing, it would be a reasonable expectation for the landlord to have investigated the condition of the pointing at the earliest convenience.
Doing this would have enabled the landlord to ascertain whether or not it was the case that the pointing was a factor in the bees nesting. There is no evidence of the landlord having completed any inspection of the building within the average completion timeframe of 3 months in its policy for scheduled repairs.
The landlord responded to the complaint saying that after it had completed work to the gable end wall in 2015 it did not receive another report about the wall until June 2022. The repair records reflect this and show that in 2015 repointing work to loose pointing was completed. The absence of any report about the issue in itself between 2015 and 2022 however, is not substantive evidence to conclude that the works the landlord completed to the gable end wall in 2015 had not failed as the resident was suggesting.
As the resident pointed out in his correspondence to the landlord, it a reasonable expectation for repointing work to last in the long term. The resident implied when he escalated his complaint, that some areas had not been filled with cement correctly when the work was done previously although, it is not clear why he had not raised this with the landlord nearer to the time when the work was last done in 2015.
The lack of inspection by the landlord was a failure as it missed the opportunity to investigate the condition of the pointing after the resident reported it. Investigating the matter would have allowed the landlord to establish whether or not the pointing to that area of the building had failed since it was completed in 2015, as the resident believed, or if it was caused by another factor.
In relation to the completion of the repairs the landlord managed the resident’s expectations as it explained there would be a delay in the completion of the repairs as a result of the limited capacity it had. There is evidence of the landlord keeping the resident updated on the delays up until November 2022. In the letters we have seen that were sent to the resident in October and November 2022 the landlord said it was aiming to have completed the outstanding work by March 2023.
However it did not complete the work by this date and the evidence shows that the work remained outstanding until at least 17 August 2023. We have no confirmation as to whether the work was completed on that date and therefore an order has been made below in relation to this.
The landlord offered an appropriate explanation to the resident that there would be delays and up to November 2022 it provided regular updates on the progress of its work to address the repair backlog causing the delay. Taking into account that the landlord aims to complete scheduled repairs by no later than 5 months and the repair could not be addressed until the bees nesting period was over, there was still a significant delay in the completion of the repair.
From November 2022 (5 months from the date of the report on 1 June 2022) it took the landlord 9 months to attend to repoint the brickwork. The landlord agreed to complete the repair in its response to the complaint and kept the resident updated up until a point. However, it then failed to complete the repairs by March 2023 as it agreed to do within its updates.
It is considered that there has been maladministration because the landlord did not investigate the resident’s concern about the repair when it was initially raised and there was a delay in completing the repair. While it kept the resident informed of the delay up to a point, this does not make up for the fact that it did not follow through to ensure the repairs were completed at the earliest opportunity and within the timeframes it had promised (March 2023).
Given the findings compensation is warranted to reflect the landlord’s failure to investigate the resident’s concern about the repair and the delay in completing the repair. We have ordered that the landlord pays the resident £100. This order of compensation is considered proportionate to reflect the failures found in the landlord’s handling of the repair and takes into consideration that:
1. The outstanding repair, while inconvenient, did not pose any significant detriment to the property or the resident’s ability to live in it.
2. The landlord was transparent about not having the capacity to complete the repair at the time it responded to the complaint. It then kept the resident updated on the delays until November 2022.
3. The landlord failed to investigate the repair complained about by way of an inspection, in order to inform its response to the complaint.
4. The landlord did not consider any redress to the resident after realising in June 2023 that the repair remained outstanding, despite its agreement to complete the repair sooner.
An order has also been made for the landlord to confirm to this Service whether the work to repoint the wall was completed during the appointment on 17 August 2023.

The landlord’s response to the report about the bee infestation.

The landlord’s advice to the resident that he would be responsible for the bee infestation is in line with the terms of the tenancy agreement.
The landlord indicated in its response that it would only reimburse a resident for the payment if a second pest control treatment was required due to delay by the landlord in completing a repair. It confirmed that prior to June 2022, it had not received a report of the pests from the resident before. Based on the previous decision by the landlord to only compensate in the event of a second treatment, its decision was reasonable. There are no records of a bee infestation being reported to the landlord prior to June 2022.
As mentioned above the landlord did not take steps to inspect the wall to establish whether the lack of pointing to the wall was actually the reason for the bees nesting on the wall.
Therefore the matter of the cause of the bees nesting is a matter of dispute here and the landlord missed the chance to demonstrate that it had fully reviewed the concern raised about the cause of the bees nesting being the result of the pointing. If the landlord found that the defective pointing enabled the bees to nest in the area as the resident suggested, it may not have been reasonable for it to expect him to fund the cost of the pest control. But there was no substantial evidence provided to demonstrate that the pointing was the cause of the infestation.
The lack of investigation by the landlord into the condition of the pointing to the brickwork after it was raised in June 2022 was found to be a failure as noted above.
Nevertheless, the landlord’s response confirming the responsibility for addressing the pest infestation was in line with the tenancy agreement. Therefore, no maladministration has been found in the landlord’s response to the bee infestation.

The landlord’s complaint handling

The landlord has 2 stages in its complaints process. At stage 1 it provides a response within 10 working days. At stage 2 it aims to respond within 20 working days.
The resident complained about the landlord’s initial definition of the complaint as it referred to his complaint as being about roof repairs as opposed to repairs to the gable end wall of the property.
After the initial complaint was raised on 1 June 2022 the landlord provided the resident with an acknowledgement with its understanding of the complaint promptly. The resident had an opportunity at this point to raise his concern about the landlord’s understanding of the complaint. However, the resident did not raise concern about the landlord’s understanding of the complaint until 13 June 2023 and by this time the landlord had already provided its stage 1 response.
After the resident escalated his complaint and clarified that he had not complained about the roof but the repair to the gable end wall, the landlord appropriately revised the complaint definition within its stage 2 response. It provided a response to the matter about the gable end wall but failed to recognise how its misunderstanding of the complaint had impacted the stage 1 investigation. In the stage 1 investigation on the basis of its understanding that the repair was about the roof, its response was related to repairs to the roof and not the gable end wall.
As noted above the resident had an opportunity to correct the landlord’s understanding of the complaint before it provided its stage 1 response but the landlord also should have apologised to him for the misunderstanding. Where something has gone wrong a landlord must acknowledge this and set out the actions it has already taken, or intends to take, to put things right. In this case the landlord put things right by ensuring its stage 2 response addressed the issues the resident complained about. But this in itself is not enough to put right the impact on its investigation at stage 1 as a result of the misunderstanding of the complaint.
The resident has referenced that the landlord has done this previously and that he believes that this is due the landlord wanting to cover up issues in its repairs service. We understand that the resident is frustrated with the way the complaint was originally defined, however there is no evidence to show that the landlord intentionally defined the complaint incorrectly.
While the stage 1 response did not address the resident’s complaint as he set it out, it was delivered within the timeframes set out in the landlord’s policy. At stage 2 however, there was a delay in the landlord acknowledging the complaint and providing its response.
The landlord acknowledged in its stage 2 response that there was a delay and explained the steps that it had taken to ensure that the stage 2 was considered accordingly. However given that the response was 10 working days over the timescales set out in its policy and that the resident had to approach us for assistance, the apology alone is not considered proportionate to reflect the delay.
The failure was minor as the landlord recognised the delay in responding, the delay was of short duration and did not affect the overall outcome of the complaint. Given the inconvenience to the resident we have found a service failure in the landlord’s complaint handling and ordered the landlord to pay £50 compensation.
The landlord also explained to the resident that it would not respond to issues he had raised about repairs that took place several years prior and an MP enquiry that was made on his behalf in 2009. Its decision to not respond to those matters was in line with its complaints policy which states that it will only consider a complaint about a service it delivered less than 6 months prior.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme there was maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the repair to the gable end wall of the property.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme there was no maladministration in the landlord’s response to the report about the bee infestation.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme there was a service failure in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Reasons

The landlord did not investigate the resident’s concern about the condition of the brickwork within a reasonable time. There was also a longer delay than it anticipated in it completing the repair but it has not offered any redress to reflect the inconvenience to the resident.
The response to the bee infestation was in accordance with the tenancy agreement.
The landlord redefined the complaint after being made aware its understanding of the complaint was wrong. It did not in addition to this, offer an apology for the impact its misunderstanding of the complaint had on the stage 1 investigation. As well as this it recognised the delay in the stage 2 response but did not offer proportionate redress to resident to reflect his time and trouble pursuing its response.

Orders

It is ordered that within 4 weeks of the date of this report the landlord pays the resident £150 comprising:
1. £100 in relation to its handling of the repair to the wall.
2. £50 in relation to its complaint handling.
The compensation is to be paid directly to the resident.
Within 4 weeks of this report the landlord is to provide confirmation to this Service about the status of the repair to the pointing of the wall that was scheduled to take place in August 2023. If the repair is outstanding to date, the landlord is to provide details about how it intends to address the repair as soon as possible.