Gateshead Metropolitan Borough Council (202233490)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202233490

Gateshead Metropolitan Borough Council

30 October 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 condition of the property at the time of letting, and the landlord’s handling of the subsequent repairs.
The Ombudsman has also investigated the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord, a local authority. The property is a two-bedroom semi-detached house and the resident’s tenancy began on 31 October 2022. The landlord has no vulnerabilities recorded for the resident.
Soon after moving into her property the resident contacted the landlord to report repairs. Between 28 October 2022 and 28 November 2022, the resident logged 14 repair requests.
The resident told the landlord that the property was not at a lettable standard when she moved in. When she did not get a response, she logged a formal complaint on 8 December 2022. The landlord returned to the property for a week in December 2022 and carried out some of the remaining repairs.
By 19 January 2023 the resident had not received a complaint response from the landlord and contacted the Ombudsman for advice. On 2 February 2023 the landlord responded within its stage 1 informal stage. It explained the repairs that had been completed and apologised for a missed appointment. It offered £365.16 rent credit as a goodwill gesture.
The resident continued to find issues with the property and reported them to the landlord. She also contacted her local MP to ask for help in getting the landlord to complete all the work. The landlord attended to some of the repairs as responsive repairs and others were grouped together and completed in May 2023. Responsive repairs are the day to day reported repairs that can be scheduled and usually completed in one visit.
The landlord issued its stage 2 complaint response on 3 May 2023. This was the investigation part of the landlord’s 3 stage complaints process. In addition to the £365.16 offered at stage 1, the landlord offered a further £1068 made up of:
1. £168 reimbursement for food to cover 4 days in May 2023 without a cooker.
2. £450 for distress and inconvenience caused to the resident by the number for repairs she had to report since moving in.
3. £300 for time and trouble the resident had to take to report and chase repairs, and be at home for appointments.
4. £50 for the complaint response delay.
5. £100 reimbursement for paint.
The landlord also advised that if the resident provided 3 month’s payslips it would pay up to a maximum of £50 per day. This was if the resident had to take unpaid leave from work to be available for the works scheduled in May 2023.
The resident remained unhappy and escalated her complaint to stage 3 of the complaints process. She said some of the information was incorrect and the compensation was not enough. The resident also contacted the Ombudsman at this point.
The resident has advised the Ombudsman that she has never seen the landlord’s stage 3 response. The landlord’s response was dated 9 June 2023. It said the offer of compensation was in line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance and it would not be increasing its offer. It also found no evidence to suggest the information in the stage 2 response was incorrect.

Post internal complaints procedure

At the time of this investigation report the resident has told the Ombudsman that issues remain outstanding. She has not had a decision on her fencing query. The plaster around the front and back doors crumbles away when it rains. Patch plastering work is required in the property. The garden of the property does not have the required one layer of patio.

Assessment and findings

The condition of the property following the landlord’s void process and the landlord’s handling of the subsequent repairs

Some repairs may not come to light until someone is living in a property for a period of time, for example a leak or a boiler fault. A landlord cannot be found at fault for unknown, unforeseen repairs, if it had completed the appropriate checks before letting. In this case there is evidence of a gas safety check when the resident moved in, but no other checks.
It is likely some of the issues the resident had to report would have been noticed if the landlord had carried out a thorough post void works inspection. The landlord has told the Ombudsman it has no record of a post void works inspection, and it does not have any photos of the completed void works. The landlord’s void to let process tells us that a manager will ensure the property is clean and take photos of the finished property. It was inappropriate of the landlord to either not carry out any checks of the void work or to carry it out and not save it to a centralised system for reference. The landlord missed an opportunity to provide a property in good condition and begin the tenant and landlord relationship on strong grounds. The absence of these records would also hinder its ability to fulfil its repair obligations going forward.
Some of the issues the resident reported suggest that the landlord did not meet its advertised lettable standard. This was not appropriate. They include:
1. Mound of soil and crates in the garden – the lettable standard says the garden will be free from rubbish.
2. No sealant around the kitchen sink – the lettable standard says sinks will be clean and in good working condition.
3. Brickwork missing above front door – the lettable standard says the property will be safe and in good condition.
Photos from an asbestos survey on 5 May 2022 show the property before any void works had taken place. It appeared to be in a bad state of repair. According to the pre void work inspection report extensive void works were instructed, including a new kitchen and a full rewire of the property. It should have been imperative for the landlord to check the quality of the completed works, given so much took place. It was unreasonable that it did not.
Although some of the issues were relatively minor, the high number that the resident had to report in the first 2 months of her tenancy was unacceptable. She reported 23 repairs between 28 October 2022 and 28 February 2023. Aside from 3 repairs the landlord completed all the responsive repairs raised within its published timescales:
1. Emergency repair – 24 hours to make safe.
2. Urgent repair – 3 working days.
3. Routine repair – 20 working days.
4. Planned repair – 40 working days.
5. Major repair – 40 working days.
The landlord acted appropriately in adhering to its timescales for 20 of the repairs raised.
Two of the missed timescale repairs were for missing brick work above the front door. This was first reported on 28 October 2022. It was correctly assessed as an urgent repair and the landlord attended on that day to make it safe. Further works were then carried out as routine repairs on 16 December 2022 (36 working days) and 4 January 2023. (45 working days). Neither of these met the landlord’s published timescale of 20 working days. The resident had to complain on 6 January 2023 about the standard of the repair and the work did not get completed until May 2023. The landlord acted inappropriately in missing its timescales and not keeping the resident informed.
The number of repairs raised, and subsequent appointments had an adverse impact on the resident’s life. She has told the Ombudsman that it took considerable amounts of her time to contact the landlord and manage the repairs needed to her property. She had to take time off work and when she ran out of annual leave, had to take unpaid leave to be home for the appointments. She expressed this was all happening around the lead up to Christmas when her work was busy. The resident felt it impacted her reputation at work as she was often seen making long calls (waiting) to speak to the landlord.
On 2 occasions the resident took time off work, and nobody turned up. The Ombudsman does not know which appointment one of these incidents was and is therefore unable to determine whether there were any failings by the landlord. The other visit was a planned home welcome visit and the landlord did not attend. In its communication with the resident at the informal stage 1 of the complaints process the landlord offered an explanation and an apology for this missed appointment. It also offered a rent credit of £365.16 for this and the amount of repairs the resident had to raise. For this matter (missed appointments) the landlord sought to put things right and the remedies were fair and proportionate to the issue.
Alongside the responsive repairs there were other repairs that were batched together, as the voids team were deemed responsible for returning and making good. These were logged on 28 November 2022 and completed at some point in December 2022. The landlord listed them as:
1. Renew kitchen unit back panels damaged by leak.
2. Renew kitchen floor tiles damaged by leak.
3. Patch repair loose plaster around door frame and skimmed as goodwill gesture.
4. New wash hand basin.
5. Ease and adjust internal doors as goodwill gesture.
6. Carpet protector removed and offcuts taken away as goodwill gesture.
This was a reasonable timeframe for the works. On 21 November 2022 the landlord had made safe a leak as an urgent repair (3 working days). On 28 November 2022 the works above were raised to the landlord’s void team, and it completed them within 20 working days. It also carried out some work that was not its responsibility, to help the resident. This included adjusting some doors and removing some carpet. This may have gone someway in repairing the landlord and resident relationship. It was customer focused.
The resident has told the Ombudsman that the landlord did not offer any reimbursement for this period when she did not have a working kitchen. It would have been reasonable for the landlord to consider whether the resident would suffer a loss of amenities during these works and offer a solution. It offered a food allowance of £168 for a week in May 2023 when works were completed deeming the kitchen unusable. It was therefore unreasonable that the landlord did not discuss any loss of amenities and possible allowances before the works commenced in December 2022.
Around 17 March 2023 the landlord agreed to further works in the garden. On 2 May 2023 the landlord sent the resident a diary of works for inside the property. The garden works were completed on 7 and 8 May 2023. The internal works were completed the week of 22 May 2023, apart from the patch plastering. These times had been agreed with the resident. The landlord acted reasonably in producing a diary of works and trying to complete them together, to limit the number of appointments the resident had to manage. It was customer focused and showed it was listening to the resident’s concerns.
The resident has told the Ombudsman that the patch plastering was not completed in May 2023. The plasterer told her he did not have time and showed her how to do it. He left her with the tub of plaster to use. The works order showed 8 hours were scheduled for plastering works. It was unreasonable that the work was not completed, and the resident was expected to do it. If the landlord did not have the time, it should have apologised, explained and re-booked the work. It acted unreasonably. The resident has been unable to finish decorating.
The Ombudsman must first consider whether a failing on the part of the landlord occurred, and if so, whether this led to any adverse effect or detriment to the resident. If it is found to be so then the investigation will then consider whether the landlord has taken enough action to ‘put things right’ and ‘learn from outcomes.’ The Ombudsman will determine whether any remedies were fair and proportionate to the failings.
In this case the landlord’s failings did have an adverse effect on the resident. The landlord acknowledged this in its initial informal stage of the complaints process. It apologised and offered a rent credit of £365.16. In its stage 2 complaint response the landlord offered a total of £1018 made up of:
1. £168 meal allowance for disruption to kitchen in May 2023.
2. £450 for the distress and inconvenience related to the number of repairs the resident had to report.
3. £300 for the time and trouble in relation to the time the resident had to take reporting and chasing repairs and being home for appointments.
4. £100 reimbursement for paint and further works to the garden the resident said are needed.
In its stage 2 complaint response of 3 May 2023 the landlord offered to consider reimbursing the resident for loss of earnings and explained what evidence it would need. The resident provided the payslips on 19 July 2023 and the landlord completed a payment slip on 26 July 2023. The resident does not recall receiving this money.
The landlord’s non-financial remedies included apologies to the resident in its complaint responses. It completed works required to the garden and the property. It also carried out some work as goodwill gestures in December 2022.
The landlord’s financial offer adequately addressed the failings that the resident and the landlord identified. It was over the guidelines recommended by the Ombudsman for a finding of maladministration that has had a significant adverse impact on the resident. The offer was within the landlord’s financial compensation guidance for offering £700+ for a finding of maladministration that has had a long-term impact on the resident, physical, emotional or both.
However, a finding of reasonable redress cannot be made as some elements of the substantive issue remain. The resident has told the Ombudsman that repairs are still outstanding with no clear decision on responsibility. These stem from the beginning of the tenancy so are related to this case. The landlord also failed to tell the resident how it would learn from this complaint. It did not consider non-financial remedies that would improve its service for other residents and prevent this from happening again.
In summary, for the reasons outlined above, the Ombudsman finds maladministration in relation to the condition of the property following the landlord’s void process and the landlord’s handling of the subsequent repairs. Orders are made below.

The landlord’s complaint handling

Landlords must have an effective complaints process to provide a good service to their residents. An effective complaints process means landlord can fix problems quickly, learn from mistakes and build good relationships with residents. In this case the landlord took too long to go through the complaint stages and its communication and record keeping was inconsistent.
The landlord operates a complaints and compliments policy. It set out that its complaint process followed a 3-stage procedure at the time of this complaint. The first stage was an attempt to resolve the issue on an informal basis. If this was unsuccessful then the landlord would carry out an investigation at stage 2. It aimed to provide a response within 10 working days. Should the resident remain unhappy the landlord would carry out a review (stage 3) by a more senior staff member and aimed to provide a response within 20 working days.
The resident has told the Ombudsman that she originally logged a complaint on 8 December 2022. There was no record of this complaint in the landlord’s evidence provided as part of this investigation. On 2 February 2023 the resident received an email as part of the landlord’s informal complaint stage. The landlord’s complaints and compliments policy tell us that when a complaint is made it will try to deal with the complaint quickly and informally by providing information or taking appropriate action to the satisfaction of the customer. The landlord acted inappropriately as its initial action was not quick. It did not have a record of the resident’s complaint and the resident had to speak to the Ombudsman early in the complaints process to seek advice.
In the informal stage 1 response of 2 February 2023, the landlord offered the resident a four-week rent credit (£365.16) as a goodwill gesture. The landlord’s financial compensation guidance states that a week’s payable rent should not be used as a unit as it does not represent a fair and consistent measure for residents. The landlord’s approach in the guidance is well thought out and it was therefore inappropriate that it used the rent as a unit for working out the goodwill gesture.
The resident escalated her complaint to stage 2 but did not hear from the landlord. On 23 March 2023 she contacted the Ombudsman and agreed to ask the landlord again for a stage 2 complaint response. The evidence provided by the landlord for this investigation showed a patchy record of logs about the complaint. It was evident that calls and notes were missing, as subsequent records made it clear that the landlord and resident had spoken previously, but there were no recorded logs. Paragraph 4.15 of the complaint handling code (the Code) details that a full record of the complaint must be kept. It must include all correspondence with the resident. It was inappropriate that the landlord did not adequately document the journey of this complaint. This caused the landlord and resident to be in dispute over dates and the amount of compensation offered. The landlord’s poor record keeping meant it was unable to provide a good service to the resident. The landlord missed opportunities to put things right and build back its trust with the resident.
As part of the stage 2 complaint investigation the landlord arranged a visit to the property and made an action plan of works to carry out. This was good practice and demonstrates that the landlord was solution focused trying to resolve the complaint issues by taking action.
The landlord’s stage 2 response was sent on 3 May 2023. The response said it had received the resident’s complaint on 24 February 2023. This was the date of the escalation request, not the date of the original complaint. The response was delayed, as it was more than 20 working days since the complaint was escalated. This was not in keeping with the landlord’s complaints and compliments policy nor the Code. There is no evidence that the landlord kept the resident informed of the delay nor agreed an extension. The landlord acted inappropriately. The landlord’s actions may have made the resident feel that it was not taking her complaint seriously.
The resident has told the Ombudsman that she had to verbally agree to the landlord’s stage 2 response before it would send it to her. The resident said she only agreed as she wanted the response. The resident had the option to escalate to stage 3 if she did not agree so it is unclear why the landlord said this or if the resident misunderstood. It was unreasonable of the landlord to ask this of the resident, or to not explain clearly what it meant.
The resident and landlord agreed that the financial remedies would be paid in part to the resident’s rent account and in part directly to her. The landlord’s financial compensation guidance allows for payments to be offset against debt. It was therefore appropriate of the landlord to do this. However, the Ombudsman encourages landlords to make payments directly to the resident, unless the resident specifically asks for it to be paid against their rent or charge account.
The day the resident received the landlord’s stage 2 complaint response, 3 May 2023, she contacted the landlord and expressed her dissatisfaction with the response. She said the dates were wrong and the compensation was not what had been agreed verbally. The landlord sent an acknowledgment letter on 11 May 2023. It was not documented when the escalation was logged, but the landlord’s stage 3 complaint response was sent on 9 June 2023. This was 26 working days after 3 May 2023. The landlord acted inappropriately, as whilst the delay was not excessive, there was no record that the resident:
1. Had been contacted about the delay.
2. Had agreed to an extension.
3. Had been given the opportunity to discuss the complaint with anyone involved at stage 3.
Had the landlord instigated any of the actions above the resident may have known when to expect the landlord’s stage 3 response and could have alerted the landlord when she did not receive it.
The landlord’s stage 3 complaint response attached information for the resident on what she could do if she was not happy with the outcome. It contained out of date information about waiting 8 weeks until contacting the Ombudsman. This had changed in October 2022. This could have put her at a disadvantage and could have delayed her accessing the Ombudsman’s services. Other residents may have been affected by this error. The landlord acted inappropriately and needs to make sure all information provided to residents is current and accurate.
The landlord offered £50 compensation for the delayed stage 2 complaint response. This was not a fair or proportionate financial remedy, taking into consideration the overall delays and the communication from the landlord. The resident had to continually ask the Ombudsman for advice and support, and she contacted her MP for help with the complaint.
In summary, there was maladministration in relation to the landlord’s complaint handling. The resident’s complaint journey was unnecessarily prolonged. It was at stage 1 (informal) for too long and should have progressed through the stages much sooner. This ultimately delayed the resolution of the complaint. The communication logs and case notes were patchy. The landlord did not adhere to its own policy or parts of the Code. An order has been made below to reflect this.
To note the landlord has since changed the way it deals with social housing complaints. It now operates a 2-stage complaint process, in line with the Code. This is a positive step to enable the landlord to separate housing complaints from other local authority complaints. This should enable the landlord to have a systems framework around its housing complaints to ensure compliance with the Code and improve the residents’ complaint journey.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in relation to the condition of the property following the landlord’s void process and the landlord’s handling of the subsequent repairs.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in relation to the landlord’s complaint handling.

Orders

Within 4 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord is ordered to apologise for the impact of its failures on the resident. This written apology must be from someone in the landlord’s senior management team.
Within 4 weeks of the date of this report the landlord is ordered to check with the resident and its records that all payments related to this case were made and received. If not to pay them within 4 weeks. The payments were:
1. £365.16 rent credit. (evidence already provided)
2. £450 for distress and inconvenience.
3. £300 for time and trouble.
4. £168 food allowance.
5. £100 reimbursement for paint and back garden works.
6. £50 for late stage 2 complaint response.
7. £166.37 for loss of earnings
8. Total – £1599.53
Within 4 weeks of the date of this report the landlord is ordered to pay the resident a further £300 for the distress and inconvenience, time and trouble incurred by the resident because of the landlord’s failures in its complaint handling.
This must be paid directly to the resident and not used to offset any arrears or other amount owed.
Within 8 weeks of the date of this report the landlord is ordered to:
1. Review the complaint information it holds on its website and other communication methods. It must check it is up to date, relevant, correct, and accessible. It must make any amendments necessary. It must provide evidence to the Ombudsman that this has been completed.
2. To meet with the resident to discuss any outstanding issues at the property. To produce a repairs action plan for the repairs the landlord will complete. To advise the resident in writing of the work the landlord will not complete and explain why. The issues include, but are not limited to:
  1. Paving around the property.
  2. Patch plastering.
  3. Fence work.
  4. Plastering around external doors.
Within 12 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord to complete a case review that considers and accounts for the failings in this case, in respect of the complaint handling. A copy of the report must be provided to the Ombudsman. A senior manager should conduct this review and the review report should set out:
1. How the review has compared this resident’s complaint journey against its current policy and procedure to identify and account for the discrepancies. The landlord should set out for each discrepancy how it will prevent this being replicated in the future. The landlord should set out any process change(s) and associated staff training that will ensure any change(s) are implemented.
Within 12 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord to review and consider the following points in respect of its void process, and provide the Ombudsman with a written report of its findings:
1. Whether a post void inspection should be completed at each void or under what criteria should a post void inspection take place, for example when it is a major void, over a certain spend or carried out by contractors. The landlord should set out any process change(s) and associated staff training that will ensure any change(s) are implemented.
2. How void documents both internally and from contractors are stored and retained. The landlord should set out any process change(s) and associated staff training that will ensure any change(s) are implemented.