Eastlight Community Homes Limited (202309761)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202309761

Eastlight Community Homes Limited

22 July 2024

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 landlords response to the resident’s request for repairs to the patio door handles and locking mechanism.

Background

The resident is an assured tenant and has resided at the property since 11 December 2020 with her children. The property is a 2-bedroom ground floor maisonette with a private garden. The resident has disclosed vulnerabilities to the landlord which were logged on its system in December 2021.
On 23 June 2022 the resident reported that her key had snapped in the lock of the patio door. The door was secure however she was unable to let her dog out into the garden. The landlord’s notes state that this was not within its definition of an emergency as the property was secure. However, it used management discretion to instruct an emergency technician given the resident’s vulnerability. It also indicated that the job cost may be recharged to the resident as the key had snapped in the lock. The resident cancelled the callout stating that she could not wait for the landlord to attend and she had found a local locksmith to attend within an hour. She contacted the landlord the following day to say that during the repair, her locksmith stated that the door handles were in poor condition and required replacement. New handles were then ordered by the landlord.
The landlord’s notes indicate that an appointment was booked for September 2022. However, it added the resident to a cancellation list to try and get the works done sooner. It is unclear when the landlord next attended the property. On 12 August 2022 the resident contacted it to ask why an appointment had been booked for 31 October 2022 to replace handles when it had already informed her that they were obsolete. It is unclear when the resident was advised this, and there is no record of the response to this query.
On 2 September 2022, the resident reported that the lock on the patio door had broken and the property was insecure. A response time of 24 hours was given for a callout, and attendance took place the same day. The resident has informed this Service that on 3 October 2022 she was under the impression new handles would be fitted however a contractor came and placed an order for new handles instead. The resident made a complaint the same day regarding the landlord’s handling of the patio door handles. It sent her an acknowledgement on 7 October 2022. On 11 October 2022, the resident called the landlord to say that a contractor had attended the previous night and fitted the new handle on the door. Since then, the door would not lock and she was unable to secure the property.
A stage 1 complaint response was sent to the resident on 12 October 2022 advising that her complaint was not upheld. It stated that the resident’s own locksmith had damaged the handles when completing the initial repair, and it had since installed alternative handles, as the original ones were obsolete. It said that the additional issues with the handles were because they were not made for the door, however it had since adjusted them so they were working. On 13 October 2022, the resident advised the landlord that she was unhappy with its complaint response and wanted to escalate the complaint to stage 2. She said she felt that the landlord was blaming her for the lock snapping and that she had been given mixed messaging regarding whether the handles could be replaced. She also stated that the door mechanism still was not fully functional and she asked for it to be fixed as resolution to the complaint.
The landlord issued a stage 2 response on 8 November 2022 stating:
1. it had determined that the complaint should be partially upheld due to the delays in emergency attendance. It recognised that she felt that the landlord was accusing her of snapping the key in the door intentionally, and that she stated that the locksmith just took the handle apart to complete the repair.
2. it recognised that she was unhappy with the delay to fit the handles once they had been ordered and felt that additional inspections were unnecessary when pictures had been taken.
3. it recognised that she was unhappy that it took so many appointments to determine that the door needed replacing to fix the original issue. To resolve the complaint, she had asked that either the door be replaced or the handles be fitted correctly.
4. it apologised if the resident felt it was blaming her for the issue with the door and knew that it was not deliberate.
5. it acknowledged that the timescale of 10 days to renew the lock was unacceptable particularly given the door could not be used. It said that it appreciated that the resident appointed an emergency locksmith but that their actions negatively impacted the continued use of the handles and locking mechanism.
6. it confirmed the handles were obsolete but was satisfied that it had provided an alternative solution. Should the lock or handle remain faulty it was committed to attending to secure the home and maintain access to the garden. As the handle did not match the door, which was affecting functionality, it requested that any planned works to replace the door were brought forward.
On 24 March 2023, the resident reported further issues with the door handles. The landlord determined that the handles were obsolete and passed the job to its assets team for a new door to be installed. The landlord has confirmed to this Service that a new door was installed on 10 April 2024. The resident remains unhappy with the landlord’s handling of the issues with her patio door and has approached the Ombudsman for support.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s repair obligations are set out in the tenancy and are implied by the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985. The landlord has the responsibility for keeping in repair the structure and exterior of the property which includes outside doors.
The landlord’s repairs policy states that emergency repairs will be completed within 24 hours, and urgent repairs within 7 working days. In the original repair request, it was confirmed that the door was locked and the property was secure, despite the fact the key had snapped. It made the decision to treat the repair as an emergency owing to the resident’s vulnerabilities. This was a reasonable decision. However, as the resident called her own tradesman it is unclear how quickly the landlord would have attended. During the complaints process it is indicated that the response time was 10 working days, which would have been outside the agreed timescale for emergencies.
Given that the landlord did not have the opportunity to attend, it could have taken the decision to recharge the resident for her own tradesman however it was positive that it did not. The resident had communicated her distress at the situation and her concern about not being able to use the patio door and the landlord used its discretion appropriately.
In subsequent repairs, based on the communication between the parties, emergency timescales were not met. It was difficult for the Ombudsman to determine from the landlord’s repairs log and customer records when each job was completed, as different sources held different information. However, it confirmed during the complaints process that it gave an estimate of 10 working days to attend the patio door. Despite this acknowledgement, no compensation was offered to the resident. The Ombudsman released a spotlight report on ‘Knowledge and Information Management (KIM) in May 2023 which found that in two-thirds of cases that this Service upheld relating to repairs, poor recordkeeping or information management played a key part in the maladministration. In the Ombudsman’s opinion, given the admitted service failure and the level of inconvenience experienced by the resident from the miscommunication, poor record keeping and continued issues with the door, it should have offered discretionary compensation.
The landlord’s compensation policy states that compensation may be provided when a resident has incurred tangible financial loss and the landlord is liable. It refers to its complaints policy for discretionary compensation or gestures of goodwill, however the complaints policy states that compensation for service failure and goodwill gestures are covered by its compensation policy. There is no clear guidance on compensation and these policies appear to be conflicting. A recommendation will be made at the end of this report for policy reviews.
The repair logs provided by the landlord were confusing as it was unclear what date some jobs had been attended to, as the repair logs conflicted with written documentation such as the complaint or call logs. Some jobs were listed as closed within two hours, but discussions between the parties indicated that this was inaccurate.
During the period investigated there was inconsistent messaging around whether the door handles could be replaced, or if they were obsolete. In June and September 2022, the resident was informed that handles had been ordered, and this was also corroborated by the contemporaneous notes made by the landlord. It is therefore reasonable that the resident may have been frustrated particularly given there were continuing issues with the door handle and lock. From the landlord’s internal notes and emails from the resident, there were at least 10 visits to the property from contractors, and this caused her considerable frustration and she said she felt that things were going in circles.
Between 23 March 2023 and 10 April 2024 there is no record of any additional issues with the door, which indicates that the landlord effected a successful repair to ensure security of the building and usage of the door. It is positive that it replaced the door despite the fact the issue appeared resolved.
The landlord considered the resident’s vulnerabilities when responding to the original repair request, however it did not consider the ongoing effect that not being able to use the back door may have had on her. This door was the only route of access to the garden, and the resident has a dog which forms part of her emotional support structure. It would be understandable if she were concerned about the impact reduced access to the outside would have on her dog and that this in turn could increase her stress level. Likewise, on occasions where the door would not lock the landlord should have considered the impact that security concerns would have on an already vulnerable resident and provided clearer direction. She had raised concerns to the landlord that the door not being able to be opened was a fire risk. While the landlord determined that there was no risk as the resident could use an alternative door, it could have provided more reassurance to the resident that her property was safe. The repeated attendances also increased the residents frustration and she expressed on numerous occasions that she felt she was not being listened to and was being misled by the landlord.
The Ombudsman finds that there was service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for repairs to the patio door handles and locking mechanism. While many of the actions it took were reasonable, its communication with the resident was confusing regarding the possibility of replacing the door handles. The landlord should also have made an appropriate offer of redress when it determined that it had failed to complete an emergency repair within its policy guidelines and in recognition of the ongoing confusion regarding the handles.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure in the landlord’s handling of the residents request for repairs to the patio door handles and locking mechanism.

Orders

The Ombudsman makes the following orders:
1. Within 4 weeks of this report, the landlord should pay the resident the sum of £125, consisting as follows:
  1. £50 for failing to meet the deadline for an emergency repair when the door was unable to be used.
  2. £75 for the communication issues and record-keeping errors regarding whether the door handles were obsolete which led to confusion for the resident.

Recommendations

The Ombudsman makes the following recommendations:
1. The landlord should self-assess against the Ombudsman’s ‘Knowledge and Information Management’ spotlight report, and review how it records repairs within its systems.
2. The landlord should review its compensation and complaints policies to ensure that there is clear guidance for its staff on how and when discretionary compensation should be offered.