East Suffolk Council (202206499)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202206499

East Suffolk Council

31 October 2022

Our approach

The Housing Ombudsman’s approach to investigating and determining complaints is to decide what is fair in all the circumstances of the case. This is set out in the Housing Act 1996 and the Housing Ombudsman Scheme (the Scheme). The Ombudsman considers the evidence and looks to see if there has been any ‘maladministration’, for example whether the landlord has failed to keep to the law, followed proper procedure, followed good practice or behaved in a reasonable and competent manner.

Both the resident and the landlord have submitted information to the Ombudsman and this has been carefully considered. Their accounts of what has happened are summarised below. This report is not an exhaustive description of all the events that have occurred in relation to this case, but an outline of the key issues as a background to the investigation’s findings.

The complaint

1. The complaint concerns how the landlord handled the replacement of the windows in the property.

Background

2. The resident is a secure tenant of the landlord, which is a local authority. The property is a house.
3. The landlord’s repair records state that it was first informed by the resident of his concerns relating to the condition of the windows in the property on 26 January 2022. On 30 January 2022, the resident raised a complaint. He described the elements of the complaint as:
   1. There were blown windows in the dining room and two of the bedrooms in the property.
   2. The windows should have been replaced prior to his family moving into the property.
   3. He had been informed by the landlord that it was not currently reglazing windows and this was a breach of housing legislation.
   4. The ongoing issue had resulted in an increase in heating bills and had put a strain on the existing medical conditions of his family.
4. In its complaint responses, the landlord:
   1. Apologised to the resident for the confusion caused by the incorrect information given to him when he first called it to report the issue.
   2. Explained that work to reglaze individual windows had been put on hold as a result of a backlog of work caused by the Covid-19 pandemic and national lockdowns. This had also caused delays in it receiving deliveries from its suppliers.
   3. Accepted that the work to replace the windows should have been raised during the period when the property was empty and apologised for this delay.
   4. Confirmed that it had booked an appointment for 2 February 2022 to measure the windows, order replacement glass and subsequently replace the windows within 90 days.
5. Following the completion of the complaints process, the landlord called the resident on 13 July 2022 to inform him that it had lost the measurements of the windows it had taken and would need to arrange another appointment. This went ahead on 19 July 2022. The landlord then ordered ten panes of glass, which were installed on 10 August 2022. The contractors determined that a further pane of glass needed to be replaced. This was ordered and the landlord stated it expected delivery on 26 August 2022 and it would then arrange an appointment with the resident to install it.
6. In referring the complaint to this Service, the resident described the outstanding issues of the complaint as the length of time it took the landlord to replace the windows and the poor level of communication he received. As a resolution to the complaint, the resident requested to be compensated for the inconvenience the issue had caused and to be reimbursed for the increase in heating costs caused by the blown windows, which he estimated was approximately £8.50 to £11 per day.

Assessment and findings

Relevant policies and procedures

7. The landlord’s handbook for tenants sets out its repair responsibilities. This, in part, states the landlord is responsible for maintaining the “The structure and fabric of the property i.e. roofs, walls, external doors, window frames and glazing, ceilings and plaster work, drains, gutters etc.”.
8. The landlord’s repairs charter prioritises its repairs as “Emergency” (attend within 24 hours), “Urgent” (attend within three working days), “Non-Urgent” (attend within ten working days), “Routine” (attend within 30 working day) and “Planned” (attend within 90 working days or within the financial year subject to funding).
9. The charter does not define a planned repair. Standard industry practice considers planned repairs as a routine repair that has added complexity which would not allow it to be completed within the normal timescale for a routine repair. For example, a repair that requires scaffolding to be erected, or replacement items need to be manufactured and shipped before the repair can go ahead. 

Scope of investigation

10. The resident has stated that living with the blown windows has had an adverse effect on the existing medical conditions of his family. The Ombudsman does not doubt the resident’s comments. However, it is beyond the remit of this Service to make a determination on whether there was a direct link between the landlord’s actions and the resident’s health and that of his family. The resident therefore may wish to seek independent advice on making a personal injury claim if he considers that his or his family’s health has been affected by any action or lack thereof by the landlord. Whilst we cannot consider the effect on health, consideration has been given to any general distress and inconvenience which the resident experienced as a result of any errors by the landlord.

How the landlord handled the replacement of the windows in the property

11. It is not in dispute that several windows in the property needed to be replaced. The landlord had a duty to respond to this matter in line with the obligations set out in the tenancy agreement and its published policies and procedures.
12. In its stage one complaint response, the landlord acknowledged that the windows should have been replaced when the property was empty, apologised to the resident for this delay and for the confusion caused by the information it provided relating to what type of work had been put on hold as a result of the Covid-19 pandemic. It then stated that it would raise work orders to replace the windows. The landlord acted appropriately at stage one of the complaint. It recognised its service failures, apologised and looked to work with its contractor to replace the windows within its 90 working days timeframe for planned repairs.
13. However, following the stage one response, the resident continued to experience delays in replacing the windows and a poor level of communication from the landlord. The landlord did not replace the windows within 90 working days. It then had to restart the replacement process as it lost the original measurements. The windows were replaced on 10 August 2022; 42 working days outside of its published target for planned repairs. Moreover, outside of the telephone call informing the resident that it had lost the window measurement data, no evidence has been provided that shows that the landlord kept the resident updated on the status of the work.
14. Therefore, there has been service failure by the landlord and in order to fully resolve the complaint, a compensation payment is warranted. The Ombudsman’s own remedies guidance (which is available on our website) suggests a payment of £50 to £100 for service failure of a short duration that did not affect the overall outcome of the complaint. This includes distress and inconvenience, time and trouble, disappointment, loss of confidence, and delays in getting matters resolved. It would therefore be appropriate for the landlord to pay £100 compensation for the delays in completing the work to replace the windows in the property and £100 for its poor communication, to recognise the inconvenience that the delays have caused to the resident and the time and trouble taken by the resident to chase the landlord for updates on the status of the work.
15. The resident has also requested additional compensation to cover the costs of the increase in heating while the blown windows remained in the property. If there has been an increase in heating costs during the period where the landlord has accepted that the windows should have been replaced, then this is a reasonable request by the resident. This is because any expenses accrued by a resident as a result of service failure by a landlord are considered a quantifiable loss, and a landlord would be expected to compensate the resident to make good the losses.
16. Therefore, it is recommended that the landlord write to the resident to inform him of the kind of evidence it would require to make a determination on whether further compensation is warranted for an increase in heating costs. On receipt of this evidence, the landlord should write back to the resident to inform him of its decision and explain how this decision was reached.

Determination

17. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure by the landlord in respect of how it handled the replacement of the windows in the property. 

Orders

18. For the service failure and reasons set out above, the landlord is ordered to pay to the resident £200. This payment should be made within four weeks of the date of this report. The landlord should update this Service when payment has been made.

Recommendations

19. It is recommended that the landlord write to the resident to inform him what kind of evidence it would require to make a determination on whether further compensation is warranted for an increase in heating costs. On receipt of this evidence, the landlord should write back to the resident to inform him of its decision and explain how this decision was reached.