Kingston upon Thames Council (202116746)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202116746

Kingston upon Thames Council

4 August 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

This complaint is about:
1. The landlord’s response to the resident’s report of window repairs, along with its subsequent complaint handling;
2. The landlord’s December 2020 decision to retain a single point of contact (SPOC) arrangement to restrict communication from the resident.

Jurisdiction

What we can and cannot consider is called the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. This is governed by the Housing Ombudsman Scheme. When a complaint is brought to the Ombudsman, we must consider all the circumstances of the case as there are sometimes reasons why a complaint will not be investigated.
After carefully considering all the evidence, in accordance with paragraph 39(o) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the following aspect of the complaint is outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.
1. The landlord’s 2020 decision to retain the SPOC arrangement.
The resident has said the landlord’s contact restriction should be removed because it is unfair and causes persistent problems. She also said the landlord’s review of the SPOC arrangement on 12 January 2021 was biased. This review said the arrangement would be reviewed again in June 2021. Further, the landlord would not correspond with the resident about the arrangement until the review date.
Paragraph 39(o) of the Scheme says the Ombudsman will not investigate complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, “seek to raise again matters which the Housing Ombudsman, or any other Ombudsman has already decided upon”.
The Ombudsman investigated the landlord’s 2020 decision to retain the restriction in July 2021.This investigation included the landlord’s January 2021 review. We determined (case 202010080) there was no maladministration in respect of the landlord’s decision. The Ombudsman is therefore unable to consider any complaints about the restriction in December 2020 or its review in January 2021. No evidence was seen to show the scheduled review in June 2021 had occurred prior to the landlord’s final complaint response dated 3 June 2021.

Background and summary of events

Background

The resident is a secure tenant, and her current tenancy began around 2008. The property is a self-contained maisonette in a block. The landlord is the resident’s local authority.
The landlord’s applicable tenancy conditions document confirms the landlord is responsible for repairing the structure and exterior of the property. It also says residents “may be entitled to compensation” if the landlord fails to carry out a reported repair within a reasonable period of time.
The landlord’s repairs policy confirms it classifies repairs in order of priority. It will attend emergency repairs, such as serious flooding within two hours. Urgent repairs, including a total loss of water, will be completed in 24 hours. All other repairs are considered “routine” and will be completed within 20 working days.
The landlord told the Ombudsman its contractors are advised to attend the property with a representative from the landlord. This is due to the volume of repair requests from the resident over a number of years. Further, this sometimes means scheduling visits to the property is a complex task.
The landlord operates a two stage formal complaints process. Its complaints procedure confirms a full response will be issued within 15 working days at both stages. The landlord’s SPOC handles all communications from the resident in accordance with her contact restriction.

Summary of events

On 6 March 2021 the resident emailed the landlord in relation to the property’s windows. She said there was water inside the double glazing in two window panes above the balcony. Further, the seals and outer edge of the balcony window were broken. The resident said the landlord should ask its contractor to address the issues.
The landlord’s contractor emailed the SPOC at around 4pm on 20 April 2021 and asked for an urgent call back. The SPOC replied after 5:30pm and enquired if the issue was resolved. They said they had only just checked their emails after completing another task. The contractor responded it had been seeking confirmation the landlord obtained the resident’s agreement for an appointment the following morning. Its email shows confirmation was requested, the week before, because “three service providers” were also due to attend.
The contractor said the appointment was now cancelled due to the lack of confirmation. Further, it would await the landlord’s instructions in relation to any rescheduled appointment. The SPOC replied after 6pm. They said the resident confirmed the appointment the day before, but they had not forwarded the relevant email to the contractor. They also said they would liaise with the resident and seek to re-arrange the appointment for the following week.
On 21 April 2021 the resident emailed the SPOC in relation to the scheduled appointment. She said its contractor was due to attend the property that morning but it failed to arrive within her allotted timeframe. She said the landlord should confirm the contractor’s arrival time, along with details of the issues it was due to inspect.
The SPOC replied around 20 minutes later and said the appointment was cancelled. They apologised for the “very late notice” and any inconvenience the resident was caused. They said a communication error around time availability had occurred within the team. Further, the resident’s request for a formal complaint would be logged and confirmed in a separate email. The Ombudsman has not seen a copy of the resident’s original complaint.
The landlord asked the resident to confirm her availability during the following week with a view to rescheduling the appointment. It also said it had notified the contractor of the resident’s recent repair requests including a gap in the outside window seal and scratches at the bottom of the balcony door window. It said it had asked the contractor to confirm whether these issues would be inspected on its next visit to the property.
The resident confirmed her availability the same day. She said she was free after 2pm on 29 April 2021. Further, the contractor should call her on the morning of the appointment to confirm it would attend as scheduled. The Ombudsman has seen a forwarded copy of the resident’s email, which was sent at 17:47pm. From the information seen, the Ombudsman was unable to establish the time the original email was sent.
The landlord also emailed the contractor on 21 April 2021 at around 10am. It said the resident had requested a rescheduled appointment on 29 April 2021 after 2pm. It asked if the contractor and its team were able to attend in line with the resident’s preference. Later that day, the landlord emailed the contractor again about two further repair requests from the resident. It asked if the additional issues would also be inspected during the next visit to the property.
The contractor updated the landlord by email on 26 April 2021. It said it was unable to attend on 29 April and suggested an alternative appointment on 5 May 2021. It asked the landlord to confirm the proposed date with the resident as soon as possible. It said the following activities would be completed during the appointment:
1. Attempt to clean marks off the outside of the balcony door.
2. Pre-inspect asphalt flooring issues in the balcony/roof area.
3. Measuring up to replace two “double glazed “fanlights” above the balcony door, checking the seal on the sitting room window, replacing two recently installed window handles and assessing scratches on the bottom window of the balcony door.
On 28 April 2021 the resident asked to raise a formal complaint about the landlord’s SPOC. She said, although she had detailed her availability, they had failed to confirm whether the appointment would proceed in line with her preference. Further, SPOC had failed to inform her the initial appointment on 21 April 2021 was cancelled.
The resident said the landlord’s “incompetence” had caused her a great deal of stress and inconvenience. Further, its contact restriction meant the problem was persistent because she was only allowed to contact her SPOC under the arrangement. The resident said, despite many similar complaints, the landlord refused to provide an alternative SPOC or to remove the contact restriction.
The SPOC replied within ten minutes. They referred the resident to an email “that was sent a few minutes ago and appears to have crossed with your email…”. The Ombudsman has not seen the referenced email, but the resident’s subsequent correspondence confirms it related to the resident’s suggested appointment time.
This prompted further correspondence from the resident, who said the SPOC’s email was sent after she submitted her complaint, which should still proceed on that basis. She said the landlord should provide evidence to show when it became aware the contractor was unable to attend the initial appointment. She also wanted to know why she was not notified earlier that the contractor was unavailable on 29 April 2021.
The resident said the SPOC’s “constant incompetence” caused “endless delays to repairs”. Further, clause 9.8 of her tenancy agreement stated she was entitled to compensation for repairs that were not completed within 20 working days. She asked how much compensation was due given it would be at least two months before her windows were replaced. She said she also wanted to complain that the representative decided whether complaints about them should be investigated. Further, “unsurprisingly”, they usually found the resident’s complaints did not warrant a response.
On 29 April 2021 the resident added further concerns to her complaint. The main points were:
1. The resident wanted to see evidence confirming when the contractor told the SPOC it cancelled the appointments on 21 and 29 April 2021.
2. The SPOC failed to notify the resident about the cancellations because they wanted to cause her “the maximum amount of inconvenience”. This was on the basis she was not notified the initial appointment was cancelled. Further, she only received notification about the second appointment after she submitted her complaint.
3. The SPOC had since suggested another date, 5 May 2021, and the resident was sure the appointment would again be cancelled without notification. The resident felt the situation was a game to the representative, but the landlord would not act to tackle their behaviour.
4. The resident was sick of being treated with contempt and disrespect by the landlord. She also said she was sick of the contact restriction, which forced her to deal with the SPOC who constantly refused to reply to her complaints.
5. The Ombudsman upheld a number of the resident’s previous complaints and had awarded hundreds of pounds in compensation. However, the landlord failed to learn from the Ombudsman’s findings because it persistently neglected to respond to her complaints, and refused to act in relation to either the SPOC or the contact restriction.
The landlord replied the following day. It said the resident’s emails were added to her open stage one complaint.
On 5 May 2021 the resident added more information to her complaint. The main points were:
1. During a visit to the property that day, the contractor told the resident it had not cancelled the appointments on 21 and 29 April 2021. Instead, it said the SPOC had not confirmed the appointments. Further, the contractor reported it chased the landlord on a number of occasions in relation to the initial appointment. However, the landlord failed to reply until the night before, which was too late to allow the appointment to proceed. In relation to the second appointment, the contractor reported that the SPOC failed to relay the resident’s preferred date and time.
2. The restriction had been in place for over three years. However, it caused ongoing problems because the SPOC did not reply to emails, relay information to the contractor, provide notification of cancelled appointments, promptly respond to reported repairs, forward the resident’s correspondence to relevant colleagues in a timely manner or reply to the resident’s complaints. Yet, despite a number of Ombudsman investigations, the landlord refused to remove the restriction.
3. Section 9.8 of the tenancy agreement showed the resident was entitled to compensation for delayed repairs. While the resident first reported the window repair on 6 March 2021, the landlord had only measured the property for replacement windows that day (around two months later). Further, the resident was aware the windows would take around one week to arrive before the landlord could schedule an installation appointment. Overall, she expected it would ultimately take around three months for the replacement windows to be fitted.
4. The landlord used the pandemic as an excuse for failing to complete timely repairs. However, this could only be attributed to the SPOC’s incompetence. The resident said she should be compensated in line with the tenancy agreement, otherwise she would pursue legal action.
The landlord acknowledged the resident’s additional information on 6 May 2021.
The landlord issued a stage one response on 12 May 2021. The timeline shows it was issued 15 working days after the resident’s initial complaint. The Ombudsman has not seen a copy of the referenced email from 17 April 2021. The main points were:
1. The SPOC failed to confirm the resident’s availability, on 21 April 2021, with the contractor. At the point the error came to light, it was too late to arrange the relevant operatives. A copy of the supporting email chain was attached to the landlord’s response in line with the resident’s request for evidence. The representative also failed to respond to the resident’s 17 April 2021 email, which asked how long the appointment would take, until 21 April 2021.
2. While this aspect of the resident’s complaint was upheld, the landlord found no evidence to indicate the resulting delay was deliberate. Instead, its investigation showed the SPOC took responsibility by informing the contractor of their error. They were also open with the resident by providing a vague but accurate description of the error, along with an apology. As a result, the landlord did not agree the SPOC deliberately attempted to cause the resident inconvenience.
3. The resident’s initial repair report was passed to the landlord’s contractor on 9 March 2021. At this point, the request was held, along with several other repair requests, pending a joint inspection of the property. This visit took place on 7 April 2021 and was the subject of a separate stage one complaint. After the contractor was unable to attend the appointment on 29 April 2021, the resident subsequently agreed to an appointment on 5 May 2021. The repair work was successfully completed on this date.
4. Given the above, the resident’s complaint was partially upheld. This was on the basis the SPOC’s actions caused a delay of nine working days between 21 April and 5 May 2021. However, the SPOC was not responsible for the “greater part of the delay” between 9 March and 21 April 2021.
5. The SPOC was not responsible for deciding whether complaints concerning them were logged and investigated. Their decisions were regularly reviewed by a senior manager and were taken in line with the landlord’s complaints policy. The landlord had responded to the resident’s previous complaints about both the SPOC and the contact arrangement.
6. The landlord found no evidence the resident was treated disrespectfully. The SPOC’s emails were worded appropriately and they apologised where necessary. The resident was able to log repair requests, complaints and service enquiries through the SPOC arrangement, which was reviewed in December 2020 and renewed for six months. The resident’s subsequent appeal was unsuccessful in January 2021.
7. Overall, the landlord was sorry for any inconvenience the resident may have been caused. The resident could appeal its decision if she was dissatisfied with the response.
The resident told the landlord she disagreed the following day. The main points were:
1. The SPOC’s description of a communication error between the team was inaccurate because it failed to reflect their personal responsibility for the error. Further, they failed to notify the resident in advance that the initial appointment was cancelled.
2. Though it said the SPOC’s error was not deliberate, the landlord had not offered any alternative explanation. Further, the contractor reported it repeatedly emailed the SPOC prior to the appointment, but they did not reply.
3. The landlord had not offered the resident compensation in line with the tenancy agreement. The resident also felt the SPOC was responsible for delays from 6 March 2021. This was on the basis they failed to promptly arrange the initial appointment.
4. The stage one response contained incorrect information because it said the resident requested the initial appointment was rescheduled to 29 April 2021. However, the resident could make the initial date but the appointment did not proceed due to the representative’s error. Further, the contractor later said it was not aware the resident was available on 29 April 2021. The resident therefore wanted email evidence the contractor had told the representative it was not available on this date.
5. The repair work was not completed on 5 May 2021 since the windows were measured on this date. The resident had not been given an installation date yet. As result, the representative was currently responsible for a delay of more than three months given the repair was reported on 6 March 2021.
6. The resident had many examples of complaints the SPOC refused to respond to. They had also refused a further complaint from the resident that day. The resident said it was “unethical” that the SPOC was able to decide whether to progress complaints they were involved in.
7. The contact restriction was an “illegal infringement of (the resident’s) civil liberties”, intended to prevent her from reporting repairs or raising complaints. Further, the landlord’s appeal process was biased. Because the SPOC was not contactable by phone, the resident was unable to speak to the landlord in the event of an emergency.
The Ombudsman has seen a screenshot of the landlord’s repair records. It shows the landlord completed the reported repairs on 18 May 2021.
The landlord issued a stage two response on 3 June 2021. The timeline shows it was issued 15 working days after the resident’s escalation request. The resident’s complaint was partially upheld. The main points were:
1. While not specific, the SPOC’s comments about a communication error between the team were an accurate description of the error that led to the cancellation of the initial appointment. However, the SPOC should have notified the resident in advance of the cancelation. The landlord was sorry for any inconvenience and had issued an internal reminder about relevant best practice.
2. The stage one response confirmed the SPOC immediately accepted responsibility for the error. At this point, they advised the contractor they thought they had already forwarded an acceptance email. There was no evidence the delay resulted from a deliberate act. Nor had the landlord seen any emails from the contractor to the representative beyond the correspondence referenced in the stage one response.
3. The stage one response also detailed the events following the resident’s initial repair request. It showed the request was correctly referred to the landlord’s contractor, and that the SPOC was not responsible for the decisions which led to the repair being arranged at a later date. Completion of the repair was delayed because the windows needed measuring and ordering prior to installation. However, their replacement “was largely for aesthetic reasons” because the previous windows continued to function correctly.
4. As a result, the landlord had not identified a reason to compensate the resident given she had not “suffered unduly” from the delay, beyond the inconvenience of rescheduling the contractor.
5. The stage one response confirmed the resident replied to the SPOC confirming her availability on 29 April 2021. This information was relayed to the contractor, which subsequently advised it was unable to attend on this date. A copy of the relevant email chain was attached to the landlord’s response in line with the resident’s request for evidence.
6. However, it should have said the windows were measured during the appointment on 5 May 2021. The landlord was sorry for any confusion arising from the incorrect wording. The landlord understood the replacement windows were installed on 18 May 2021 and the repair was therefore complete.
7. The stage one response had correctly stated that the resident’s repair request was relayed to the contractor on 9 March 2021. Further, that the contractor took the decision to delay booking the repair until a joint visit to the property had been completed. The SPOC was not responsible for this decision or the resulting delay.
8. It was also correct to say the SPOC’s decisions were reviewed internally, and their actions were agreed by senior colleagues. The SPOC was not the decision maker in relation to complaints about the SPOC arrangement. Further, the resident’s complaints about the restriction had been addressed previously. The resident was advised the landlord would not comment further until a review of the restriction due in June 2021.

Assessment and findings

It is recognised the delayed window repair was frustrating for the resident. The timeline confirms it took around 49 working days, between 6 March and 18 May 2021, for the windows to be installed following the resident’s initial report. However, the wording of its tenancy conditions shows the landlord is not obliged to offer compensation in respect of every delayed repair.
In this case, no evidence was seen to show the old windows stopped performing their required function before the replacements were installed. Nor was any information seen to show that the resident was adversely impacted by the water between the window panes in the interim period. Given the above, the landlord’s formal apology was sufficient redress in relation to the delayed repair.
In contrast, it is reasonable to conclude the resident was inconvenienced by the late cancellation of the initial appointment on 21 April 2021. The timeline suggests the SPOC could have notified the resident about the cancellation prior to her allocated timeslot. If they had, her overall level of inconvenience may have been reduced. It is also reasonable to conclude the resident had to make additional arrangements to facilitate a further (preventable) appointment on 5 May 2021.
On that basis, the landlord’s apology was not sufficient to redress the resident given what went wrong. Generally speaking, an apology is often inadequate redress given multiple issues. In this case, the evidence confirms the landlord’s failures included delay, a rescheduled appointment and incorrect information in the landlord’s stage one response. As a result, there was service failure in respect of the landlord’s response to the resident’s report of window repairs, along with its subsequent complaint handling
The Ombudsman will therefore order compensation proportionate to the distress and inconvenience the resident was caused. However, no evidence was seen to show the SPOC unreasonably declined to investigate complaints, or that they otherwise acted inappropriately towards the resident. From the information seen, the impact of the timeline error in the landlord’s stage one response was minimal.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was service failure in respect of the landlord’s response to the resident’s report of window repairs, along with its subsequent complaint handling.

Reasons

The landlord’s formal apology was disproportionate redress given what went wrong.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

The landlord to pay the resident £100 in compensation within four weeks to address any distress and inconvenience the resident was caused by its above identified delays and failures.

Recommendations

The landlord to consider to consider compensation in complaints where multiple failures are identified.
The landlord should provide the Ombudsman with evidence it complied with the above order and confirm its intentions concerning the recommendation within four weeks of the date of this report.