Dudley Metropolitan Borough Council (201911389)

 

 

 

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 201911389

Dudley Metropolitan Borough Council

16 February 2021

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 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 concerns:

1. The landlord’s response to the resident’s request for bathroom and kitchen repairs.
2. The landlord’s communication and complaint handling.

Background and summary of events

Background

2. The resident has been a tenant of the landlord since 11 October 2018.
3. The resident advised he had “been waiting for months” for the landlord to inspect the property and arrange for works to be done to his property’s plaster, uneven flooring and bad drainage smells.

Summary of events

4. The landlord’s records noted that it visited the resident’s property on 22 January 2019. During this visit, it recorded that the resident discussed his concerns regarding the condition of the property. As a result of this discussion, the landlord noted that it raised a request, on 23 January 2019, for further inspections and works to be carried out. The resident then chased the landlord for updates on this on 5 and 20 February 2019, according to its records.
5. On 4 April 2019, the resident wrote to the landlord to raise a stage one complaint. The resident advised that he had an inspection booked in for that same day between 8am to 1pm, for which he waited at the property yet no one arrived. The resident advised that he then left the property and returned after 2pm. Upon his return he found a note informing him that the inspector had visited at 12:45pm but no one was at the property. The resident advised that, upon his return, he contacted the landlord and requested “to speak to the head of inspection”; however, the landlord refused and advised the resident to rebook an appointment.
6. The landlord provided the resident with a written stage one complaint acknowledgement on 8 April 2019. The landlord advised that it would investigate and respond to the complaint within 20 working days and that it would inform him if it could not do so and provide him with the likely timescale for its later response. On 18 April 2019, the resident re-sent his complaint to the landlord.
7. On 30 April 2019, the landlord wrote to the resident to apologise for the delay in providing a stage one response and advised that it was still investigating his complaint, for which it required further time and aimed to respond to as soon as possible. The resident replied on the same date, expressing his concerns that he could become injured due the condition of the plaster in the property’s kitchen and bathroom.
8. The landlord wrote to the resident on 2 May 2019 to address the following matters in relation to his complaint:

a. The initial complaint comprised of various issues, meaning that this would need to be discussed with multiple teams, which could lead to delays in providing a response.

b. Due to the resident’s behaviour during a telephone call with a maintenance officer on 30 April 2019, the landlord advised that it could not progress with the complaint investigation.

c. The landlord advised that, in order to progress the complaint, the resident would need to contact it by 9 May 2019 to book an appointment for a visit by a maintenance officer.

9. Following further correspondence between the landlord and resident on 2, 7, 9 and 16 May 2019, it was agreed between the parties that the landlord would inspect the property on 21 May 2019 at 4:15pm. The landlord advised that the investigation for the stage one complaint would progress after “the appointment has taken place”.
10. The landlord issued a stage one complaint response on 10 June 2019 addressing the following matters:

a. The landlord confirmed that an officer attended the resident’s property on 4 April 2019, who left a note as no one was at the property.

b. The landlord booked another appointment for 21 May 2019, during which it identified that: the waste water was not draining properly from the bath; there was plaster missing from both the bathroom and kitchen; the relocation of the central heating boiler had left the “original location” in need of repairs; the removal of a base unit to allow for a range cooker to be installed had left an electrical socket in the scorch zone of the latter; there was an asbestos flue pipe in the pantry; and the bedroom and living room presented signs of mould and condensation.

c. The landlord advised that it had raised a request for: repair works to be carried out to the plaster in the kitchen and bathroom; the bath to be raised so that water could drain properly; all outlet connections to be checked for any blockages and the waste water pipes from kitchen and bathroom to be replaced; the kitchen unit removed by the resident to be re-fitted and a damaged worktop replaced; glazed tiles to be replaced as there was a gap left by the removal of the boiler; electrical sockets found in the scorch zone to be relocated; areas affected by mould to be treated with fungicidal wash; and the asbestos flue pipe to be removed.

d. The landlord also identified that certain rechargeable works were required, such as refitting the door closure system to the front door; removing an electrical socket that the resident had installed in the pantry; and the plastering required in the bathroom and kitchen that was caused by the resident when removing the curtain batons.

e. Additionally, the landlord advised that the above works were scheduled to be completed within the following six to eight weeks.

11. The above response was sent by letter to the resident; however, it did not reach him as it was sent to the incorrect address.
12. The resident wrote to the landlord on 19 November 2019 to advise that he was still waiting for the requested repair works to be carried out and that he was not happy with this situation.
13. Moving forward, the resident wrote to this Service on 26 November 2019 to advise he was still waiting for a stage one complaint response from the landlord. In this correspondence the resident confirmed that the above appointment previously booked in for 21 May 2019 took place. The resident advised that the inspector attending had identified that the landlord would need to resolve bad drainage smells, remove plaster from and re-plaster two walls each in the bathroom and kitchen, replace the extractor fan in the bathroom, even off the kitchen floor, repair the electrics, and install additional kitchen units. However, the works were yet to be completed. Additionally, the resident advised that he had initially contacted the landlord regarding these repairs in December 2018. It is also noted that the resident had recorded this visit.
14. On 2 December 2019, this Service contacted both the resident and landlord regarding this matter and advised that the landlord was to provide a response to the resident by 23 December 2019. The landlord responded to this on 6 December 2019, advising that it was unable to identify any recent formal complaints and that it had contacted the resident. Subsequently, the landlord contacted this Service on 12 December 2019 to advise that it had received a new complaint from the resident on 9 December 2019, that it had logged this as a stage one complaint, and that it would issue a response within 20 working days.
15. The landlord wrote to the resident on 20 December 2019 to address the following points:

a. A stage one complaint response had been issued on 10 June 2019; however, this was sent to the wrong address.

b. It had listened to the recording made by the resident (without the attending officers consent) during the inspection on 21 May 2019 and confirmed that neither of the officers attending “agreed to replace the whole kitchen”.

c. It confirmed that it agreed to: replace the worktops including the splash back tiles; remove and refit the kitchen units (including a unit removed by the resident); re-plaster the kitchen walls and two bathroom walls; and relocate the electrical sockets found in the scorch zone. It also stated that it had already completed works to treat mould affected areas with fungicidal wash, remove an asbestos flue pipe, and repair the drain in the bathroom.

16. On 3 January 2020, the resident wrote to the landlord to address the following:

a. As a result of a recent telephone call, he would like to escalate his complaint to stage two of its complaints procedure.

b. The resident advised that a number of repairs that were discussed during the inspection from 21 May 2019 were not mentioned.

17. On 5 February 2020, the landlord issued the resident with another stage one complaint response addressing the following items:

a. It had arranged for the functionality of the extractor fan, foul smell and pipework to be looked into during the appointment booked in for repairs to the bathroom.

b. A further appointment would be arranged for the asbestos flue pipe to be removed (there was a previous appointment booked in for 13 January 2020; however, the landlord could not carry out the work because of a lack of access).

c. The kitchen repairs would include re-plastering of the ceiling and walls, drainage from the kitchen sink would be assessed, “kitchen will be replaced on a like for like basis with new work top, sink and tiles being replaced and the existing base unit being re-fitted”.

d. The landlord also advised that it would contact the resident shortly to arrange appointments for the required works to be carried out. Additionally, the landlord requested that the resident used “appropriate language” towards its staff in future interactions.

18. The resident wrote to this Service on 7 February 2020 to advise he had exhausted the landlord’s complaints procedure, but he was unhappy with the outcome as he had been waiting for the repairs to be carried out since December 2018. On 19 February 2020, the resident provided this Service with the landlord’s latest stage one complaint response.
19. On 2 April 2020, the landlord emailed the resident to advise that it could not escalate his complaint to the second and final stage of its complaint process because this did not meet its criteria for him to do so. It required that he show a factual error based on the decision made, an oversight on a significant piece of evidence or new evidence in support of his original complaint that was not included with his original submission. However, the landlord stated that the resident’s above escalation request and non-consensual 21 May 2019 inspection recording did not meet these criteria.
20. It is also noted that, throughout the above complaint process, the resident requested to raise complaints against the landlord’s staff who were involved in dealing with his complaint.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s tenants handbook

21. The landlord’s tenants handbook states that:

a. The landlord has a legal duty to carry out some repairs within a certain time after the resident reported these.

b. If a major repair is reported, usually an inspection would be carried out to determine the extent of the works required. The inspector may also be able to advise when the works will be carried out and approximately how long it will take for these to be completed.

c. In instances where major repairs and improvements are required the landlord will group works into batches. Timescales will vary according to the type and scale of work to be undertaken, budget availability and any consultation period.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s request for bathroom and kitchen repairs

22. Based on the information provided to this Service, the resident moved into the property on 11 October 2018 and contacted the landlord to ask it to inspect and carry out repairs to the property from approximately December 2018. As per the landlord’s records, it visited the property on 22 January 2019 to carry out a post-tenancy check. At this time, the resident raised a considerable number of concerns with regard to the state of the property. In this instance, the landlord adhered to its tenants handbook by raising a request for an inspection to be carried out, to determine the extent of the works required.
23. Due to no further contact from the landlord, the resident contacted it on 5 and 20 February 2019 for an update; however, the landlord failed to book any inspection appointments at that time. An inspection was scheduled for 4 April 2019 but did not go ahead due to access issues. It is noted that there was a gap of 72 days between the landlord’s first visit on 22 January 2019 and the above scheduled inspection. While the landlord’s tenants handbook does not provide specific timeframes for inspections, 72 days was an unreasonable time for the resident to wait for an inspection.
24. Moving forward, an inspection was booked in for 21 May 2019 at 4:15pm during which the landlord assessed the property. The landlord formally advised of the repairs that it would carry out, via a stage one complaint letter that was issued on 10 June 2019. In this correspondence, the landlord detailed the actions that it would take and advised that these were “scheduled to be completed within the next 6-8 weeks”. The landlord was compliant with its tenants handbook in this instance as it identified the required remedial works and provided the resident with a reasonable completion timeframe. However, these works did not go ahead because the correspondence did not reach the resident as it was sent to an incorrect address by the landlord.
25. Due to no further contact, the resident contacted the landlord once more on 19 November 2019 and the issue of the outstanding works was picked up again. The landlord wrote to the resident on 20 December 2019 to address the repairs that it would carry out, but it failed to mention all of the works agreed in the letter issued on 10 June 2019. The latter consisted of raising the resident’s bath, replacing the kitchen and bathroom waste water pipes, replacing glazed tiles and rechargeable works including refitting the front door closure system, removing the resident’s pantry electrical socket and plastering required by his removal of curtain batons.
26. Moving forward, it is noted that the landlord attended the property on 13 January 2020 to remove an asbestos flue pipe; however, it was unable to do so due to lack of access to the property.
27. On 5 February 2020, the landlord issued the resident with another written stage one complaint response, advising of the works that it would carry out. In this instance, the landlord acted in accordance with its tenants handbook as it identified the repairs required, grouped these into batches and also agreed to schedule another appointment for the asbestos flue pipe to be removed.
28. To conclude, certain delays were outside of the landlord’s control, such as the appointments booked in for 4 April 2019 and 13 January 2020 when it was unable to gain access to the property and when it noted that it was unable to progress the resident’s case without his cooperation to make another appointment from 4 April to 16 May 2019. However, taking into account that the defects were reported by the resident from approximately December 2018 and the fact that the landlord first assessed the property on 22 January 2019, the landlord was responsible for service failure in its handling of the repairs to be carried out in the resident’s kitchen and bathroom.
29. This is because the landlord then delayed arranging an inspection of the above repairs for 72 days despite being contacted by the resident for an update at least twice during this period. Moreover, there is no evidence that it subsequently arranged for the plaster, bathroom extractor fan, bath and pipework and kitchen replacement and drainage repairs to be completed following its 21 May 2019 inspection.
30. It is also to be taken into consideration that completion of the above repairs has still not been reported to this Service. The landlord did inform the resident on 20 December 2019 that it had completed mould treatment in the property’s living room and bedroom, rectified water drainage in the bathroom and removed the asbestos flue pipe in the property’s store. However, no records were provided to us to verify this and it is unclear whether the latter two works occurred successfully given that it appeared to re-offer similar bathroom drainage and flue removal repairs to the resident on 5 February 2020. In order to put matters right, it was necessary for the landlord to carry out all repairs discussed and agreed with the resident in a timely manner and offer compensation for the inconvenience caused by this situation, and so it has been ordered to do so below.

The landlord’s corporate customer feedback procedure

31. The landlord operates a two-stage complaints process:

a. At stage one the landlord commits to acknowledge the complaint within five working days and issue a response within 20 days. Should the complaint be more complex, the landlord commits to updating the resident regularly.

b. Should the resident be dissatisfied with the outcome of the stage one complaint this could be escalated to the second and final stage. However, in order for this to be done, the resident must show that there has been a factual error based on the decision made, that there has been an oversight on a significant piece of information, or that new evidence has been provided to support the original complaint which was not included with the original complaint submission. The request must be submitted within 20 working days from the date of the stage one response and the landlord commits to providing a new response within 20 working days.

The landlord’s communication and complaint handling

32. The resident wrote to the landlord to lodge a stage one formal complaint on 4 April 2019. In this instance, the landlord complied with its corporate customer feedback procedure as it issued a written acknowledgement on 8 April 2019, which was within the indicated five working days timeframe. Moving forward, the landlord continued to adhere to its procedure as it contacted the resident on 2 May 2019 to advise that, due to the complexity of his case, it would not be able to keep to the 20 working days response time. The landlord issued a written stage one complaint response on 10 June 2019. However, it failed to inform the resident of its findings as the letter was sent to the wrong address. Moreover, the landlord failed to comply with the response that it issued, which advised it would contact the resident to arrange the necessary appointments.
33. The resident wrote to the landlord on 19 November 2019 to advise he was still waiting for the works raised in his stage one complaint to be carried out. Due to no response, the resident then contacted this Service on 26 November 2019 to advise he was still waiting for another complaint response from the landlord and for the repairs discussed to be carried out. After further correspondence between the resident, this Service and the landlord on 2, 6, 9 and 12 December 2019, the landlord confirmed that it had recorded another stage one complaint from him.
34. The landlord responded to this latest complaint on 20 December 2019 and it confirmed that an initial stage one complaint response was sent on 10 June 2019 to the wrong address. However, it failed to apologise or offer any form of redress to the resident for the inconvenience caused by this incident, which was unreasonable. Taking the above into account, the landlord was ineffective in its communication with the resident as it failed to follow up on the initial complaint response and respond to his email of 19 November 2019.
35. Moving forward, the resident requested for his complaint to be escalated to stage two of the landlord’s complaints process on 3 January 2020, on the grounds that a number of repairs were not mentioned in its latest complaint response as outlined above at paragraph 25. Additionally, the resident requested to lodge a complaint regarding one of the landlord’s staff. The landlord refused to escalate the resident’s complaint to stage two by advising that this did not meet the criteria to do so. However, this did not comply with its own corporate customer feedback procedure because this states that the resident can escalate a complaint if unhappy with the stage one complaint response and if a significant piece of information was overlooked.
36. It is noted, however, that the landlord issued a new stage one response on 5 February 2020, which was more detailed than the one issued on 20 December 2019. The landlord was nevertheless also ineffective in its communication with the resident as it did not acknowledge his 3 January 2020 escalation request to record a new complaint, regarding a member of its staff, and also in its procedure’s 20-working-day response time as the landlord replied to this on 2 April 2020.
37. To conclude, the landlord occasionally adhered to the response timeframes set in its corporate customer feedback procedure. However, this does not change the delays and inconvenience caused by sending the initial stage one complaint response to the wrong address or by the amount of time taken to respond to the resident’s correspondence, together with its refusal to escalate the complaint. The landlord should apologise and compensate the resident for the mistake that it made and the delays and inconvenience caused by this and ensure that it takes appropriate action to ensure that this does not happen again.

Determination (decision)

38. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration by the landlord in:

a. The landlord’s response to the resident’s request for bathroom and kitchen repairs.

b. The landlord’s communication and complaint handling

Reasons

39. The landlord took over two months to book an inspection of the property. Subsequently, the landlord caused avoidable delays by not arranging the appointments required to carry out the remedial works. This Service took into consideration the instances where the landlord booked an appointment but could not gain access to the property; however, based on the evidence provided, these were two isolated incidents.

40. Additionally, the landlord sent the stage one complaint response to the wrong address, failed to acknowledge its mistake, apologise or offer the resident a form of redress; nor did it respond to the resident’s queries after an acceptable amount of time and it declined to escalate his complaint.

Orders

41. The Ombudsman orders the landlord to:
    1. Provide the resident with a written apology and pay compensation of £350 to him for the inconvenience and delays caused to him by its above failings in his case.

The compensation has been calculated based on the Housing Ombudsman remedies guidance and is to be paid in full to the resident within four weeks of this determination.

2. The landlord is to report to this Service, within four weeks, to advise if any works remain outstanding at the property and provide a timeframe as to when it will complete these.

Recommendations

42. It is recommended that the landlord:

1. Review its repairs policy and set specific timescales for a broader range of repairs to ensure that moving forward these are dealt with in a timely manner.
2. Set specific response times to correspondence from residents to ensure that all queries are dealt with and that future disputes caused by the level of communication are avoided.
3. Implement a more thorough record keeping procedure to ensure all interactions and details are stored properly and easily accessible to avoid any future disputes caused by the level of communication.
4. Consider providing further complaints handling and soft skills training to its staff to make sure that complaints are acknowledged and handled accurately.

43. The landlord shall contact this Service within four weeks to confirm that it has complied with the above orders and to confirm whether it will follow the above recommendations.
44. The Ombudsman accepts that, because of the present restrictions due to the corona virus pandemic, the timing of the above actions will depend on what is reasonable in the light of Government guidance regarding the health of the resident and of the landlord’s staff.