City of Doncaster Council (202339564)
REPORT
COMPLAINT 202339564
City of Doncaster Council
18 February 2025
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 concerns regarding works required to the windows in the property.
- The associated complaint.
Background and summary of events
- The resident is a secure tenant of the landlord and lives in a 2-bedroom semi-detached house.
- 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’.
- The resident contacted the landlord in June 2022 to arrange an inspection of the windows as he was concerned that they were inadequate. He submitted a formal complaint to the landlord on the 13 June 2022. He stated that it attended the property to complete the inspection without arranging an appointment with him beforehand.
- The landlord sent its stage 1 response on 22 June 2022, where it apologised for any distress caused but said that the appointment it had attended had been arranged with the resident during a telephone call on 10 June 2022. It said that the inspection on the windows had now been completed and that they were found to be adequate. Their replacement would be due in 2035. There were no repairs highlighted by the inspector and it said it would continue to maintain them should the resident report any repairs.
- The resident asked the landlord to escalate his complaint on 17 July 2022. He was unhappy with its decision as he believed the windows required repair work or replacement. He said that the stage 1 response was inaccurate as an appointment had not been arranged with him during his telephone call.
- The Ombudsman contacted the landlord in March 2024 after the resident said that he had not received a response to his escalation request. The landlord sent its stage 2 response on 16 April 2024. It reiterated that the windows were not due for replacement. It also admitted that no appointment had been booked with the resident. The landlord apologised for the misinformation in its stage 1 response and for the failure in complaint handling. As a “goodwill gesture” it offered the resident £50.
- The resident escalated his complaint to this Service as he remained unhappy with the landlord’s response. He wanted to be provided with an accurate response to the issues raised in his complaint and for work to his windows to be completed.
Assessment and findings
Works required to the windows
- The landlord’s repairs policy in place at the time of the resident’s inspection request states it will:
- Respond to and complete emergency repairs within 2 to 24 hours, depending on the nature of the repair.
- Complete urgent repairs within 5 working days.
- Complete non urgent repairs within 20 working days.
- The resident contacted the landlord to request an inspection of the windows throughout his property on 10 June 2022. He said that the windows were allowing a cold draught into the house, and he was concerned that they were inadequate. He was worried about the cost of his gas bill due to this. The landlord advised the resident that they could not confirm an appointment date for the inspection due to a lack of available slots to book, but it would contact him to get one confirmed.
- On 13 June 2022 the resident complained to the landlord that he had received 2 texts from it in quick succession regarding the inspection. He had been out of the property at the time. The landlord had attended to carry out the inspection and as they were unable to get access, advised him that the job would be cancelled. He was unhappy that an appointment had not been arranged with him and instead the landlord had attended without his prior knowledge. He was dissatisfied with the poor communication and wished to rearrange the inspection.
- With the resident’s agreement, the landlord attended to inspect the windows on 16 June 2022. This was in line with the timescales set out in its repair and maintenance policy. It found the windows to be working adequately with no repairs identified. The landlord explained that the windows did not currently require replacement and that they were placed on a cyclical programme to do so at the end of their lifespan.
- The evidence provided to us shows that the landlord requested that its asset management team considered bringing the property forward on its cyclical programme to enable the windows to be replaced sooner. In the absence of evidence to suggest that the windows were due replacement, it was not required to do so. This was reasonable and showed that it had taken on board the resident’s concerns.
- In its stage 1 complaint response the landlord confirmed that after inspecting the windows they were found to be adequate and due for replacement in 2035. It said that it would continue to maintain them should any repair work become necessary. Landlords are entitled to opt to repair damaged items where it is more economical to do so, rather than replacing them. It is also good practice for landlords to schedule major works such as replacement windows in advance and to have a programme for such works so that multiple properties can be renovated at the same time. It was appropriate for the landlord to explain this to the resident and provide clarity for him.
- The complaint response also addressed the issue with poor communication regarding the inspection appointment. It said that an appointment had been arranged with the resident during the telephone call he made on 10 June 2022. The evidence provided to the Ombudsman confirms that this was not the case. No appointment was confirmed during the call, the resident was advised by the landlord that he would be contacted to get this arranged. Better communication by the landlord regarding the appointment, and recognition of this in its response, would have prevented the dissatisfaction experienced by the resident.
- When requesting escalation of his complaint on 17 July 2022 the resident told the landlord that he believed that the windows required repair work or replacement. He said that the inspection that had taken place was inadequate and did not believe its findings to be accurate. There is no evidence to indicate that the landlord addressed the resident’s concerns or issued any response to him. This was a missed opportunity by the landlord to identify concerns regarding the condition of the windows.
- The landlord’s records show no further requests for repairs until 2 December 2022. On this day, a repair job was raised for 8 windows in the property to have their gaskets replaces and hinges adjusted. The record keeping by the landlord does not allow this Service to establish how the repair was reported. As this is substantial repair work it would be reasonable to assume that the landlord had assessed the windows and deemed the work necessary.
- It appears that there was a delay in the landlord completing this repair work to the windows. It was completed on 7 March 2023, 64 working days after it was raised. This does not meet the timescales set out in its policy. The failure to maintain adequate records by the landlord in relation to this repair has impacted our ability to assess whether the actions it took were reasonable. This was a failure by the landlord.
- The Ombudsman has not seen any evidence of further reports by the resident regarding the windows in 2023. Whilst the landlord did not complete a post-works survey of the repairs it had completed, in the absence of any further reports from the resident, it was reasonable for it to assume that the repairs had likely resolved the issue.
- From January 2024 onwards, there were several repair jobs logged including the replacement of the bedroom and landing windows. An inspection arranged by the landlord on 30 January 2024 to investigate damp that was present throughout the property, recommended that work was required to the landing window. The inspection report shows that the landing window frame was affected by wet rot decay. Work to stem this would need to be carried out as soon as possible as it posed a risk to safety in the home.
- Whilst it is reasonable to assume that the window repairs that followed were a result of the findings during this inspection there is no mention of this in the landlord’s repair logs or records provided to this Service.
- The resident had expressed in his contact with us, that the windows required repair work or replacement as their condition had further deteriorated since his escalation request in 2022. The survey report of January 2024 seems to indicate that this is most likely. A recommendation has been made below for the landlord to review how it records works orders, including the reason they are raised and the outcome, and provide staff guidance on this.
- Overall, there were delays in the landlord responding to the resident’s concerns regarding works that were required to the windows. The scale of these delays is not entirely clear, due to the lack of information it held regarding them. There were some failings in its communication with him on the issue.
- The missing records in this case have presented challenges for the Ombudsman in investigating this complaint as we have been unable to assess whether some of the landlord’s actions were fair and reasonable. As highlighted in our spotlight report on knowledge and information management, it is vitally important that landlord’s keep detailed records of all actions taken in respect of repairs, including inspections and works completed. This allows the landlord to account for its actions and decisions to residents and this Service, where required.
- For the reasons outlined above The Ombudsman finds there was service failure by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s concerns regarding works required to the windows in the property.
Associated complaint
- The landlord has a 2-stage complaints process. It will acknowledge complaints within 3 working days and respond to stage 1 and 2 complaints within 10 and 20 working days respectively. Its policy states if the response cannot be completed in full by the tenth working day, the resident will be notified to inform them of the progress of their complaint and when they will expect a full response. This is in line with our Complaint Handling Code timescales.
- The resident’s stage 1 complaint was acknowledged by the landlord on the same day it was raised. The landlord sent its response on 22 June 2022. This was in line with the timescales set out in its policy.
- The resident requested that his complaint was escalated to stage 2 on 17 July 2022, 18 working days after he received the stage 1 response and in line with the timescales set out in the landlord’s policy. The landlord’s records confirm this, and it should therefore have escalated his complaint from this date.
- There is no evidence to show that the resident made any contact with the landlord to chase a response to his escalation request. The acknowledgement and subsequent response at stage 2 followed intervention by this Service on 13 March 2024 when the resident contacted us directly. It was poor practice that the landlord did not deal with the escalation request of July 2022. However, as human error cannot be eliminated, the fact that the resident did not chase it for a response for about 20 months is a mitigating factor in how we have considered this matter.
- In its stage 2 response the landlord recognised that the resident had been misinformed in its previous complaint response. It clarified that he had not been informed of the inspection appointment on the telephone call he made on 10 June 2022 and that its stage 1 response had been incorrect. It apologised for the inconvenience caused by this and offered a goodwill gesture of £50 for this and the failure in complaint handling.
- Where there are failings by a landlord, as is the case here, this Service will consider whether the redress offered by it (including an apology and compensation) put things right and resolved the resident’s complaint satisfactorily in the circumstances. In considering this, this Service considers whether the landlord’s offer of redress was in line with our dispute resolution principles to be fair, put things right and learn from outcomes.
- The landlord described its offer of compensation as a ‘goodwill payment’. As such, it is not evident how it relates to the separate failings identified in its complaint response. Where failings have been identified by a landlord it is important that any redress is recognised as compensation for these, and this is made clear in its response. The landlord should consider this good practice and in line with our Complaint Handling Code.
- It was appropriate that the landlord acknowledged and apologised for the failure in its complaint handling and recognised that its stage 1 response had been inaccurate. In its offer of £50 compensation, the landlord did not provide a breakdown with respect to the specific failures within the complaint. It is good practice for landlords to be explicit in their compensation awards, in terms of highlighting the specific amount of compensation it has awarded to each element of the complaint. The landlord should consider this learning in its future complaint responses.
- The landlord took some steps towards putting things right, however these were not sufficient considering the significant delays and poor communication that the resident had experienced from the landlord.
- In summary, the landlord’s offer does not constitute reasonable redress. It should have considered the delay in responding to the resident’s escalation request and the inaccuracy of its stage 1 response as separate issues when calculating its compensation offer. Thus, the amount of compensation it offered was not proportionate to the failings identified in this report. This Service has made orders for it to pay increased compensation and complete specific actions to resolve the issues. This is in line with our dispute resolution principles to be fair and put things right.
Determination
- In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme:
- There was service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns regarding works required to the windows in the property.
- There was service failure in the landlord’s handling of the associated complaint.
Orders
- Within 4 weeks of the date of this determination, the landlord must:
- Provide a written apology to the resident for the failings identified in this report.
- Pay the resident total compensation of £200 broken down as follows:
- £100 for its failures in respect of its handling of the resident’s concerns regarding works required to the windows in the property.
- £100 (including the £50 previously offered if not already paid) for its failures in respect of its handling of the associated complaint.
- These payments must be paid directly to the resident and not to his rent account.
- Arrange an inspection of the windows at the property and produce an inspection report which must:
- Confirm if there are any outstanding works required to the windows.
- Provide a schedule of required repairs and include a timeline for the completion of these works.
- Provide the Ombudsman with documentary evidence of compliance with these orders.
Recommendations
- We recommend that the landlord reviews its record keeping arrangements to ensure that these are robust. This is to ensure that accurate and accessible records are kept and collated, both of works raised and completed and of resident contact. It may wish to refer to the Ombudsman’s spotlight report on knowledge and information management.