Harlow District Council (202533374)

Background

1. The resident reported problems with the communal entrance door and intercom system which affected access to the building.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s response to:
   1. Repairs to the communal entrance door and intercom system.
   2. The resident’s complaint.

Our decision (determination)

3. We have found that:
   1. There was maladministration in the landlord’s response to repairs to the communal entrance door and intercom system.
   2. There was no maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s complaint.

We have made orders for the landlord to put things right.

Summary of reasons

Repairs to the communal entrance door and intercom system.

4. While there were some delays that were outside of the landlord’s influence, there were several delays and missed opportunities caused by the landlord. There was a lack of oversight of the work which resulted in repeated visits that did not progress the repair. There was insufficient communication with the resident about the work which still remains outstanding.

Complaints handling

5. Failings were identified in the landlord’s complaints handling. However, these were very minor and caused no detriment to the resident or outcome of the complaint.

Putting things right

Where we find service failure, maladministration or severe maladministration we can make orders for the landlord to put things right. We have the discretion to make recommendations in all other cases within our jurisdiction.

Orders

Landlords must comply with our orders in the manner and timescales we specify. The landlord must provide documentary evidence of compliance with our orders by the due date set.

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

What we found and why

The circumstances of this complaint are well known by the parties involved, so it is not necessary to detail everything that’s happened or comment on all the information we’ve reviewed. We’ve only included the key information that forms the basis of our decision of whether the landlord is responsible for maladministration.

6. The repair was first reported on 12 February 2024 and the landlord attended on the same day. Attending on the same day was in line with the timescales in the landlord’s housing repairs and maintenance policy which states a timescale of 5 working days for urgent repairs.
7. As some residents of the building were experiencing access issues, the contractor provided a temporary fix which was to remove the lock to ensure access. This was a reasonable action in light of the access problems. However, it left the building unsecure so was only intended to be a temporary measure.
8. The landlord’s stage 1 and stage 2 responses both stated a new lock for the communal entrance door had been ordered. However, this was unable to be fitted as the relevant lock was no longer available. We have not seen evidence of the landlord attempting to order the lock but work order notes from a carpenter confirmed that the lock could not be replaced as it was no longer made. This should have prompted the landlord to consider alternative permanent options to replace the lock.
9. When a lock was not available the contractor reattended on 14 March 2024 to install a handle on the door. This was so the door could be opened from the outside when the door closed and latched. The installation of this handle was also due to be temporary. However, when the landlord visited 11 months later on 11 February 2025, it noted the handle was still in place which allowed unauthorised access to the building. We have not seen evidence that the handle has been removed.
10. On 14 March 2024 the contractor also identified that the intercom was not working. A new electronic panel for the intercom was needed, and a work order was raised for this on the same day. The landlord’s said the contractor was waiting for a lead time from the supplier for the electronic panel. Any delay waiting for a part to arrive was reasonable.
11. The landlord’s stage 2 response said the electronic panel was fitted in March 2024. However, the work order indicated this was fitted on 17 April 2024. This was the part for the intercom. There was no follow-on work for the door lock raised at this time. This was a missed opportunity to progress the repair to the communal entrance door lock and address the security of the building.
12. Between 29 May 2024 and 23 July 2024, the landlord visited the building to repair the door a total of 4 times. Each visit resulted in the same outcome of the operatives reiterating that the lock was missing, and a handle had been added meaning the building was unsecure. This information was already known to the landlord and demonstrated continued failure to take meaningful action.
13. Notes from the visit on 23 July 2024 stated that the operative had contacted somebody about the matter and the job was issued to other contractors. This resulted in a work order being raised on 6 September 2024. It was unclear why there was a further delay to progress the matters between 23 July 2024 and 6 September 2024.
14. As a result of this work order a contractor attended and found a “broken core on the main panel”. We were unable to establish when this visit took place, but work was invoiced on 11 October 2024. A further visit on this work order was made by an electrician on 15 November 2024.
15. The work order notes said the panel was fixed and the cabling and handsets had been checked. It said the system was now working correctly. The work order made no reference to any replacement to the missing communal entrance door lock which had previously been established was no longer available. Therefore, it appeared that the repair was to the intercom system only and not the door.
16. On 25 November 2024 a further report of the communal entrance door being difficult to open and close was made by the caretakers of the building. A carpenter attended but identified the intercom system was faulty, so the work was carried over to a contractor. The work was allocated to the contractor on 9 December 2024. It was unclear why it took 10 working days to allocate the job to the contractor. This added further delay.
17. The landlord’s stage 2 response said the contractor attended on 12 December 2024. It said the contractor visited 14 properties in the building and found all of these were experiencing intermittent speech from the intercom system. The contractor thought the problem was with the microphone and speaker unit within the front panel.
18. Another work order was raised on 12 December 2024 regarding the communal entrance door. A carpenter attended on 14 December 2024. The work order notes stated the carpenter tried to repair the door, but the joint had come away. The carpenter concluded that a new door might be needed. There was no evidence that a work order was raised for this.
19. The landlord said in its stage 2 response that a site visit occurred on 14 January 2025 with a specialist contractor and its electrical manager. The outcome of this visit was for a new door entry system to be installed. The landlord said it would need to get a quote, and this would need to be approved.
20. On 29 January 2025 the landlord received a quote from the contractor. However, on 31 January 2025, the landlord advised the contractor that it appeared this work was not considered under the approved service contract as a repair, so it was required to get additional quotes.
21. On 19 March 2025, over 13 months after the problem was originally reported, the landlord sent a letter to all residents in the building saying the door entry system was “obsolete”. It advised that it had decided to replace the door entry system and was currently reviewing quotes. The landlord said it was prioritising the work.
22. However, 16 months later, the work has not yet been completed and there was no evidence of any further updates having been issued to residents to explain the delays.
23. On 12 May 2026, the landlord told us that a contractor had advised that the cabling for the door entry system also needed to be replaced. The landlord also told us that to carry out the work it required Gateway Approval from the Building Safety Regulator. The landlord said it had confirmed the requirements, and the process was now under way for this approval.
24. While the landlord carried out some repairs and any delay waiting for Gateway Approval from the Building Regulator was reasonable, there were repeated delays in progressing the repairs that were within the landlord’s control.
25. There were repeated visits responding to the same problem which concluded with the same observations that had already been established previously on multiple occasions but without further action. This showed there was inadequate oversight of the job. The resident said these repeated visits caused her to incur service charges unnecessarily, without the repair progressing.
26. The resident said the delays in the repair being carried out meant that she had lived in an unsecured building that she felt compromised her safety, property and peace of mind.
27. A lasting and effective repair has remained outstanding for 28 months. During this time, there was not sufficient communication with the resident and her expectations about the timescales involved have not been managed.
28. In line with our compensation guidance, we have ordered the landlord to pay the resident compensation for the time and trouble and distress and inconvenience caused by the delays and needing to pursue a complaint.

29. The landlord’s complaints policy, including complaint definition and timescales, were compliant with the Code.
30. We have not seen evidence that acknowledgements of the complaint and escalation request were sent to the resident. The notes on the landlord’s complaint logs referenced when the responses had been issued and other internal communications about the complaint. However, there was no reference to any acknowledgements being issued. This was not in line with the landlord’s policy or the Code which require acknowledgements to be issued within 5 working days of the complaint and escalation request.
31. The stage 1 response was issued 7 working days after the complaint was received. This timeframe is in line with the landlord’s policy and the Code which require a stage 1 response to be issued within 10 working days of acknowledging the complaint.
32. The stage 2 response was delayed. The landlord’s policy and the Code require a stage 2 response to be issued within 20 working days of acknowledging the escalation request. The landlord issued its stage 2 response 30 working days after it received the resident’s escalation request.
33. While there did not appear to be any acknowledgements issued, the landlord’s policy and the Code allow 5 working days for the landlord to acknowledge a complaint and then 20 working days after the acknowledgement to issue the stage 2 response. This totals a maximum of 25 working days after the escalation request is received to issue a stage 2 response. Therefore, the stage 2 response was issued 5 working days late.
34. The landlord is allowed to request an extension if needed which would cover this period. However, we have not seen any evidence that an extension request was made.
35. While the above failings were identified in the landlord’s complaint handling, these were minor and caused no detriment to the resident or the outcome of the complaint..

Learning

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

36. The landlord should ensure it has appropriate oversight of repairs. We would encourage the landlord to review the key learnings in our Spotlight Report on complaints about repairs. This is to decide if it needs to take any action to improve its oversight of work orders and follow-on work required.

Communication

37. The landlord should review its complaint handling procedures to ensure all complaints and escalations are issued with acknowledgements in line with its policy and the Code. We would encourage the landlord to review the recommendations in our Spotlight Report on knowledge and information management. This is to decide if it needs to take any action to improve its record keeping for complaint handling.