Dacorum Borough Council (202212543)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202212543

Dacorum Borough Council

19 May 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

This complaint is about the landlord’s:
1. Handling of structural repairs to the property’s garden;
2. Complaint handling.

Background and summary of events

Background

The resident was an introductory tenant when her tenancy began on 23 March 2020. The information seen suggests she became a flexible tenant after 12 months. The property is a three-bedroom house with a garden. The landlord is the resident’s local authority. The resident occupies the property with her two young children. Her son is autistic.
The tenancy agreement confirms the landlord must ensure the property is in a reasonable state of repair when the tenancy starts. It must also keep the structure of the property in “good repair”. This includes: walls, boundary walls and fences (other than fences between gardens which is a resident responsibility). The resident is responsible for keeping the garden tidy. This includes trimming lawns and hedges. The agreement suggests the weekly rent is £136.29.
The landlord’s repairs policy shows it aims to minimise the time between a request for a repair and its reported completion, unless it is more cost effective to complete the repair as part of a programme of works. It also details the landlord’s repair timescales. It shows small works are non-urgent repairs which can be undertaken in batches on cost grounds. The landlord will respond to small repairs within 45 days.
The landlord provided an undated complaints policy document. It confirms the landlord operates a two-stage complaints procedure. It shows the landlord aimed to respond to complaints within 15 working days at stage one. At stage two, it aimed to respond within 20 working days. If the landlord needed additional investigation time, it could extend these deadlines providing the resident was kept informed. Online searching confirmed the landlord has recently updated its policy.

Summary of events

During correspondence to its small works team on 24 February 2020, the landlord said walls in the property’s rear garden should be rebuilt and made-good. Further, a picket fence should be installed “as protection from falling on both levels”. In relation to a side access, it said, “timber fences, brickwork, sleepers and chain link” were all in poor condition. As a result, many of these items would need removing to create “some decent retaining walls”.
The landlord’s internal correspondence from 9 March 2020 shows a site meeting took place that day. Further, the landlord subsequently shared several images of the property with its preferred contractor so the contractor could obtain relevant costings. Online searching confirmed the preferred contractor was a builder, developer and property management provider. Its later correspondence shows the preferred contractor engaged with its own contractors during the timeline.
On 18 May 2020 the landlord wrote to the resident about requested improvements. It said it did not object to the installation of perimeter fencing around the property’s front and rear gardens. However, its approval was subject to a number of conditions being met.
In June 2020 the landlord asked its preferred contractor to call and update the resident. The contractor said it would rather wait until it had received a quote for the repairs. The correspondence seen suggests this exchange was prompted by the resident’s request for an update.
On 13 July 2020 the landlord approved the resident’s request to install a 6ftx8ft shed in the rear garden. Its approval was again subject to a number of conditions.
In internal correspondence on 18 September 2020, the landlord said the resident had called about the garden. Further, she reported the retaining wall had been fenced off when the family moved in. However, she reported no work had been carried out and there had been no communication from the landlord.
On 14 October 2020 the landlord’s surveying team shared a quote it received from the landlord’s preferred contractor. The quote described the works as, “Carry out works to external walls as per drawings/site visit with (landlord’s surveyor)”. The itemised list of works shows this estimate was based the demolition of six existing walls, which would then be rebuilt. In total, the works were expected to cost around £18K.
In an email on 3 November 2020, the landlord asked its preferred contractor to quote for a revised list of works. Under the revised schedule, fewer walls would be demolished and rebuilt. Instead, several walls would have the top two or three layers of bricks removed and rebuilt. This email suggests the landlord was unhappy with the contractor’s previous quote.
The landlord’s correspondence confirms the following events occurred between 23 November and 2 December 2020:
1. Following a chaser from the landlord, the preferred contractor said it had been assured it would receive costing information from a third party the following day.
2. Around one week later, the landlord’s surveyor chased the preferred contractor again for its quote.
3. The next day, the preferred contractor said it had some questions about the revised schedule following a visit to the property. It requested an urgent site meeting with the landlord. It said the resident did not want a “repair job”. The Ombudsman has not seen the landlord’s response.
The parties were in correspondence between 22 and 30 March 2021. The resident asked the landlord for an update. She also said she was waiting for a contractor to remove some equipment from the garden. The landlord subsequently told its preferred contractor it needed the costings as soon as possible.
On 6 April 2021 the preferred contractor told the landlord it needed a structural engineer’s report and a design to progress the works. This was on the basis the retaining walls were in poor condition. The landlord replied the same day. It said the situation had been discussed several times and it was “not replacing any structural walls in their entirety”. Further, the design was a repair to match the existing structure. Since the works were proving to be a problem, the contractor should place the job on hold until further notice.
Its internal correspondence from 26 May 2021 said the landlord had not received a revised quote from its preferred contractor. The correspondence also said the landlord had obtained a quote for around £6K from an alternative provider. Further, it had approved the quote and was awaiting the contractor’s start date.
On 3 June 2021 the preferred contractor contacted a third party surveyor. It said it had been asked to carry out significant brickwork repairs to a number of retaining walls. However, it said, the walls looked unstable and it would not touch them without having the works reviewed. On that basis, it wanted the surveyor to establish whether it was safe to carry out the proposed works. The surveyor was asked to provide an alternative specification if the requested works were not “appropriate”.
During internal correspondence in mid-July 2021, two of the landlord’s surveyors disputed the need for a structural survey. They said: walls were not being removed, a competent builder was capable of completing the “minor” works and a structural report was an unnecessary waste of the landlord’s limited time and resources. The landlord ultimately agreed to the report during an email on 29 July 2021. This email suggests there were further discussions with its preferred contractor during the interim period.
Later internal correspondence, from 14 October 2021, contained the landlord’s timeline of events. The timeline said the alternative contractor was due to begin the works on 10 June 2021. However, the landlord’s senior surveyor cancelled the repairs the same day. It said this was on the basis the landlord should not source works outside of its contract with the preferred contractor. Around the same time, the resident asked the landlord for an update.
The structural engineer’s report was dated “August 2021”. The report was commissioned by the preferred contractor. It identified several issues with the landlord’s revised schedule of works. For example, it said the landlord’s proposal to demolish and rebuild the front garden wall was dependent on the condition of the sub-base, and new foundations might be needed. The key points were:
1. A full rebuild was recommended to a 10 metre long wall at the side of the property.
2. In the rear garden, a damaged “upper double brick” retaining wall needed replacing. A new wall should be built in accordance with current building standards. The same approach should also be applied to an “L” shaped wall near the stairs.
3. Another wall in this area was cracked. Since it could impact the wall’s stability, the landlord should revise its schedule to replace the top five layers of bricks.
4. Picket fences would not provide adequate fall protection. The landlord should consider alternatives such as a “kee” clamp or railing system.
On 1 September 2021, its preferred contractor gave the landlord an email copy of the structural engineer’s report. It asked whether the landlord wanted it to provide a revised quote in line with the report’s recommendations. The landlord agreed it should provide the relevant costings the same day.
The resident raised a formal complaint on 22 September 2021. She said, prior to moving in, the landlord said there were outstanding structural works to be completed. Further, on moving in, it advised her the children should not use the garden. Overall, she was unhappy with the landlord’s delays and poor communication. She said the situation had impacted the family’s living conditions and enjoyment of the property. In addition, she had removed the family’s storage shed at her own cost in preparation for the works. Her main points were:
1. Outdoor retaining walls and steps were unstable. Further, the garden had been inaccessible for 18 months due to safety barriers and equipment that the landlord left when the family moved in.
2. Works had not been completed within a reasonable time. They had failed to begin as planned on two separate occasions. Further, multiple contractors had turned up unannounced disrupting the resident’s home working.
3. The resident understood the landlord’s proposed works were deemed insufficient and contrary to regulations. However, she had not been updated as to the outcome of the recent structural survey. She also understood external works were unaffected by the most recent pandemic restrictions.
4. The landlord should either complete the works and compensate the resident, or transfer the family to another of its properties.
On 15 October 2021 the resident emailed the landlord’s Chief Executive. This was two days after its stage one response was due. She said the landlord failed to respond to her complaint and she wanted to escalate her concerns. An attached letter set out her concerns in detail. The letter restated a number of the key points raised during her initial complaint. The new points were:
1. The resident had no concerns about the landlord’s preferred contractor, which had been professional and courteous. It had attended the property on several occasions. The resident understood it had been unable to progress the works without the landlord’s co-operation. In contrast, the landlord was at times rude, dismissive and condescending.
2. The resident felt the landlord’s refusal to accept its preferred contractor’s recommendations had caused delays. A previous contractor had said its proposed works were unsafe. However, the landlord recently told the resident it accepted the structural engineer’s findings. As a result, it knew the extent of the works required.
3. The property’s boundary walls were also in “disrepair”. The family’s privacy was impacted because a neighbouring property was built on higher ground. Related noise and nuisance smoke was encroaching on the property. The resident was unable to erect fences due to the outstanding works. This made the delays more difficult and unfair.
4. The resident had asked the landlord to remove the safety barriers in the garden. This was because the garden was overgrown and it needed to be maintained. The landlord should not have let the property with outstanding works to retaining walls. Overall, the ongoing situation had been stressful and time-consuming.
5. The resident had other concerns about the landlord and the property. These issues would be addressed separately with the landlord.
The landlord issued a stage one response on 20 October 2021. This was around 20 working days after the resident’s formal complaint. No information was seen to shows the landlord acknowledged her complaint or asked for additional investigation time. Its response failed to acknowledge the short delay. The landlord apologised for the time taken to complete the repairs and any inconvenience caused. The main points were:
1. The works required were more significant than the landlord initially thought. Retaining walls needed to be formally designed for safety reasons.
2. The landlord had commissioned an independent architectural practice to produce the necessary designs. Once prepared, it would tender and arrange the works as a priority.
3. The landlord’s surveyor would contact the resident weekly to keep her updated. Their own contact number was given in the correspondence.
The landlord’s internal correspondence from 21 October 2021 shows it had received its preferred contractor’s revised quote. The quote shows the projected cost of the repairs was around £68K.
The landlord exchanged emails with the resident on 25 October 2021. It said a response had been issued since the resident’s escalation request. It asked whether her concerns were now resolved. The resident replied she wanted to proceed with the escalation because several issues had not been addressed. The landlord issued a stage two acknowledgment the following day.
Between 26 October and 3 November 2021 the landlord asked an independent surveyor for a site survey, drawings and a specification for remedial works. The surveyor replied a site visit was needed before it could provide a quote. The landlord’s related internal correspondence said arranging the surveyor was urgent and it should be prioritised over other work.
In an email on 16 November 2021, the landlord told the resident its stage two response would be delayed because the landlord’s senior leader was due to meet her at the property within days. Contrary to its complaints policy, no information was seen to show the landlord gave the resident a revised response deadline.
On 8 December 2021 the landlord issued a stage two response. This was around 32 working days after the resident confirmed her complaint was unresolved. The landlord again failed to acknowledge any complaint handling delays. It said a new retaining structure to the rear garden, which would encompass both neighbouring properties, was currently being designed. The landlord said it would share its designs with the resident in due course. Further, it anticipated the repair works would begin in Spring 2022. It also said the resident could approach the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman (LGSCO) if she remained unhappy.
The next evidence we have seen was internal correspondence from 23 May 2022. The landlord said the resident had called chasing the repairs after being told the works would be postponed until September 2022. Further, she reported the neighbours were “constant drug takers” and the lack of fencing prevented the family using the garden. The landlord asked internally whether a temporary barrier was a solution.
The Ombudsman has seen a drawing labelled “proposed works 22 June 2022 agreed with (landlord’s surveyor)”. The drawing indicates the schedule of works was not finalised until around this time. It also suggests extensive works were required. In its later evidence to the Ombudsman, the landlord said the surveyor named in the drawing was no longer an employee. It also acknowledged there had been disputes between the resident and the neighbours.
From the landlord’s internal correspondence and the Ombudsman’s own records, the following events occurred between 12 September and 27 October 2022:
1. The resident called chasing the repairs. She reported Citizens Advice had advised her to apply for alternative accommodation through the landlord. Further, that she court take the landlord to court.
2. The resident approached the Ombudsman around the same time. In a webform from this period, she said her son’s wellbeing and development had been impaired due to a lack of outside space and unsuitable accommodation inside the property. Further, the landlord had failed to meet its safety obligations.
3. The landlord asked a new contractor to quote for the repairs following a visit to the property. Its email said obtaining “full drawings” would cost around £10K, which the landlord would rather spend on the repairs.
On 19 October 2022 the resident discussed her complaint during a call with Ombudsman. We advised her to raise a separate complaint with the landlord to address additional concerns including the landlord’s handling of other outstanding repairs.
The resident updated the Ombudsman during a call on 17 May 2023. She said the repairs had not begun and no progress appeared to have been made. This was despite involvement from one of the landlord’s managers. She said she was at her “wits-end” and had previously tired of complaining given the time she had spent attempting to progress matters. Her main points were:
1. The landlord had declined to place the resident on its rehousing register on the basis the family were suitably housed. Its communication and expectation management about the repairs had been poor. She was unsure why the landlord had failed to progress the works.
2. The family’s shed had cost around £700 to install. The landlord advised her to remove it to facilitate the repairs. Dismantling it cost around £150. Though the resident had bought an external storage unit, the children’s bikes were now stored outside and they were getting rusty.

Assessment and findings

It is recognised the situation is distressing for the resident. The timeline shows it has been ongoing for a considerable period of time. Where the Ombudsman identifies failure on a landlord’s part, we can consider the resulting distress, inconvenience and loss of amenity. Complaints about rehousing applications on health or welfare grounds are outside the Ombudsman’s remit in line with part 6 of the Housing Act (1996). The LGSCO is the appropriate body to consider related complaints. The resident should raise her concerns with the landlord in the first instance.

The landlord’s handling of structural repairs to the property’s garden

It is accepted the necessary garden repairs likely involve significant expenditure for the landlord. Nevertheless, based on the timing of this assessment, the above information shows they remain outstanding around 40 months after the landlord instructed its small works team to complete them. This was based on the period between February 2020 and May 2023. In contrast, the landlord’s repairs policy confirms it should respond to “small works” repairs within 45 days. That said, it was recognised the landlord’s operations were impacted by the pandemic.
Given the above, the overall timescale was adjusted by four months to reflect the impact of the first national lockdown. This calculation included an additional month to allow the landlord’s operations reasonable time to recover. Based on previous cases seen, we agreed with the resident’s assertion that subsequent lockdowns should not have significantly impacted landlord’s ability to complete external repairs. Given the above, the evidence suggests the landlord was responsible for delays of around 35 months following this adjustment.
The landlord has not disputed it was responsible for the completing the repairs. It should have therefore completed them within a reasonable timeframe. Based on its recent correspondence, it was still trying to obtain quotes in September 2022. Given the circumstances, it cannot fairly be said that 35 months represents a reasonable timeframe. Whilst its preferred contractor was responsible for some initial delays, the landlord should have taken reasonable steps to manage the situation. In other words, the landlord was ultimately responsible for agents acting on its behalf.
Overall, the landlord’s concerning lack of progress confirms it was not sufficiently resolution focussed in relation to the necessary repairs. The above identified delay period was contrary to the landlord’s repairs policy. Its duration confirms the landlord’s handling of the repairs was inappropriate. If cost concerns were a barrier, the landlord could have reasonably referred the repairs to its major works team for assistance. There was no indication that it did this. The below will consider the impact on the resident and her family.
The resident has consistently said the family were advised not to use parts of the garden. Further, the landlord erected safety barriers to prevent them accessing areas containing unsafe brickwork. No information was seen to show there were significant safety issues relating to any unavoidable areas of the garden. Nevertheless, it is reasonable to conclude the situation was worrying given the composition of the resident’s young family. Further, their overall enjoyment of the property was reduced by the barriers and lack of access.
The resident has said the situation prevented her from installing fences that may have helped to mitigate the issues with her neighbours. The landlord has not disputed this assertion. The evidence suggests the resident also incurred costs relating to the installation and removal of a storage shed. She told us she now has alternative outside storage but it was understood the shed cannot be reinstalled. Alternative storage suggests the property’s exterior was not altogether unusable. However, she also said there was currently no room for the children’s bikes, which were rusting from being kept outside.
The timeline confirms the resident made significant efforts to progress the repairs. It shows she repeatedly contacted the landlord for updates and often referred to its lack of communication. It also shows the works were postponed on at least two occasions. The evidence also points to multiple site visits from various actors including: surveyors, managers, contractors and structural engineers. The resident has said a number of these visits were unexpected. Further, the number of visits caused disruption to her home working pattern.
Overall, there was maladministration in respect of the landlord’s handling of the structural repairs to the garden. The Ombudsman will award compensation to put things right for the resident based on the information seen. Our compensation order will include a rent reduction element based on a refund of around 5.5% over the duration of the identified 35 month delay period. The rent figures have been used as a guideline only and are not intended to amount to an exact refund. The remainder of the compensation awarded will address the resident’s distress, inconvenience and shed expenses.

The landlord’s complaint handling

The timeline points to significant issues with the landlord’s complaint handling. For example, based on the wording of its complaint correspondence, the landlord failed to consider its own complaint handling as part of its investigation. As a result, it failed to recognise, and therefore redress, short delays which occurred at both stages of its complaint process. The timeline shows these delays amounted to around 17 working days in total. Given their duration, the landlord should have reasonably awarded compensation. Its failure to offer any redress was inappropriate.
Similarly, because it apologised for any inconvenience caused by the delays and promised a weekly update, the landlord appears to have identified failures at stage one. However, it failed to engage with the resident’s clear request for compensation. This was contrary to the Housing Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code) as published in July 2020. Section 3.14 of the Code said, “Landlords shall address all points raised in the complaint and provide clear reasons for any decisions…”. Section 5.6 said, “Any remedy offered must reflect the extent of any service failures, and the level of detriment to the resident…”.
From the above timeline, the repairs had been outstanding for around 20 months at the point the stage one response was issued. This was based on the period between 24 February 2020 and 20 October 2021. Given the circumstances, the landlord’s apology and promise of regular updates insufficient to redress what went wrong. Given its lack of engagement with the issues, the landlord was highly unlikely to resolve the resident’s concerns at this stage. The above is further evidence of inappropriate complaint handling by the landlord.
Similar issues were evident in the landlord’s brief stage two response which, in contrast, failed to acknowledge any delays or apologise. Based on its wording and lack of engagement, the response resembled an update rather than an escalated complaint response. The landlord should have attempted to rectify any failures and extract learnings where possible. No information was seen to show it attempted to create an action plan or conduct any additional progress monitoring. It was noted the landlord’s executive team should have been aware of the complaint.
In addition, the stage two response only contained referral rights to the LGSCO. No information was given about this Service. Given our remit, the Housing Ombudsman, not the LGSCO, was the appropriate body to consider a complaint of this type. The landlord’s incorrect referral could have caused the resident additional delays and inconvenience. The landlord should take steps to ensure it is referring residents correctly. From our May 2023 discussion, there was no indication the resident had approached the wrong ombudsman service.
The above confirms the landlord’s complaint handling was both inappropriate and contrary to the Code. In summary, the landlord failed to engage fully with the substance of the complaint or make reasonable attempts to put things right. Given the circumstances, the landlord was unlikely to resolve matters through its own internal complaints procedure. In other words, the landlord missed an opportunity to resolve matters internally due to its inadequate complaint handling. The resident was also incorrectly signposted to the wrong ombudsman service.
Overall, the significant failures identified represent maladministration in respect of the landlord’s complaint handling. Collectively, they suggest the landlord’s complaint procedure is not operating effectively.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was:
1. Maladministration in respect of the landlord’s handling of structural repairs to the property’s garden.
2. Maladministration in respect of the landlord’s complaint handling.

Reasons

The landlord’s concerning lack of progress confirms it was not sufficiently resolution focussed in relation to the necessary repairs. The identified 35 month delay period was both unreasonable and contrary to its repairs policy. Its duration confirms the landlord’s handling of the repairs was inappropriate.
The landlord failed to engage fully with the substance of the resident’s complaint, or make reasonable attempts to put things right. This was both inappropriate and contrary to the Code. Given its inadequate complaint handling, the landlord was unlikely to resolve matters internally .

Orders and recommendations

Orders

The Ombudsman orders the landlord to appoint one of its senior leaders to oversee the repairs until completion. Within four weeks the landlord should provide the resident, and the Ombudsman, an action plan confirming how it will swiftly complete the repairs. The landlord should provide detailed monthly updates to both parties until the repairs are complete.
The appointed senior leader to issue the resident a written apology within four weeks. It should recognise the landlord’s inappropriate delays and failure to engage with the resident’s complaint. The landlord should provide the Ombudsman a copy of the letter. To avoid duplication, the letter could include the landlord’s action plan. It should include the appointed leader’s direct contact details.
The landlord to pay the resident a total of £2,500 in compensation within four weeks. Compensation should be paid directly to the resident and not offset against any arrears. The compensation comprises:
1. £1,050 rent reimbursement for loss of enjoyment/amenity caused by the landlord’s delayed garden repairs.
2. £850 for the installation and subsequent removal of the resident’s garden shed.
3. £300 for any distress and inconvenience the resident was caused by the above identified delays.
4. £300 for any distress and inconvenience the resident was caused by the landlord’s inappropriate complaint handling.
The landlord to conduct a senior management review into the key issues highlighted in this report. Within four weeks, the landlord should provide the Ombudsman a report summarising its identified improvements. The review should include: its processes for managing difficult repair projects, its failure to award appropriate redress and its ability to resolve issues through its complaints process. It should cascade the report’s findings to relevant staff for improvement purposes.

Recommendations

The landlord to strengthen its processes for managing difficult repair projects. For example, where the scope of works expands or where projected costs spiral. This could include referring cases to teams with experience of delivering large-scale works projects.
The landlord to routinely consider its own complaint handling as part of its complaint investigations. This is with a view to ensuring it can identify any complaint handling issues internally and redress them accordingly.
The landlord’s complaint response templates to include standard paragraphs containing details for both this Service and the LGSCO along with a brief summary of each organisation. This is to ensure residents are correctly signposted to the correct service without delay.
The landlord should provide evidence of compliance with the above orders and confirm its intentions with regards to the recommendations within four weeks.