We are updating our systems this weekend. You will be unable to submit an online complaint form from Friday 3 April until Monday 6 April.

Normal services will resume on Tuesday 7 April.

Thank you for your patience.

London Borough of Croydon (202214040)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202214040

London Borough of Croydon

11 January 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

  1. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of:
    1. The resident’s requests for repairs to the cooker
    2. The resident’s request for a fence to be installed.
  2. The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

  1. The resident is a secure tenant of the landlord, living in a ground-floor flat. The landlord has no recorded vulnerabilities for this resident.
  2. The resident has reported delays with repairs and work to her property. The resident stated that her cooker was not functional since November 2020, when she moved into the property. In addition, she has reported privacy issues with members of the public being able to look into, and enter her property. The resident requested that a fence be erected to prevent this. 
  3. The resident raised her stage 1 complaint to her landlord on 15 June 2022. This complaint included the issues with the cooker/hob, a broken window, an unlocked electrical cupboard which allowed the public to access it and faulty communal heaters. In addition, a man had entered the resident’s property previously and been “run out” by her son, prompting a further request for a fence to be installed.
  4. The landlord issued its stage 1 complaint response on 12 July 2022 which noted that an inspection had been carried out, but that the resident had not contacted the repairs contractor to arrange ? follow up on works. The landlord had arranged a visit for the following day to inspect several elements related to the resident’s complaint. The landlord also noted that the broken window and some of the hallway heaters had since been repaired.
  5. The resident escalated her complaint to stage 2 of the landlord’s complaint procedure on 24 July 2022. The landlord’s stage 2 response was issued on 29 September 2022. The response upheld the resident’s complaints regarding her cooker and the fencing around her property. The landlord did not uphold the complaints regarding the electrical cupboard or communal heaters as these works had since been completed. A second response from the landlord made an offer of £300 compensation to account for the delays in repairing the cooker and installing the fence.
  6. The resident further escalated her complaint to the landlord’s Housing Complaints Panel on 10 February 2023 requesting a repair to the cooker and compensation for the delay. Additionally, the resident noted that a fence had been installed by the landlord but that this was only around 1 metre high, rather than 6 feet, which had previously been promised. The resident sought an explanation and remedy for this.
  7. The Housing Complaints Panel issued its findings on 11 May 2023 and upheld the complaint regarding the fence, instructing that a 6 foot fence was to be erected the following week. With regards to the cooker, the panel had identified, through a site visit, that the cooker had been functioning throughout this process, however it upheld the £300 compensation previously offered, due to the length of delays in having the cooker inspected.
  8. The resident remained dissatisfied due to the length of time taken to repair the hob and install the fence. The resident escalated her complaint to this Service on 22 December 2022.  

Assessment and findings

Repairs to the cooker

  1. From the evidence presented to this service, the resident reported that her cooker hob was not working in June 2021, via her residents’ association. The resident stated that this reduced her ability to prepare nutritious meals and that she instead relied on her microwave to reheat meals which were prepared by her family.
  2. There is evidence that both the resident and the residents’ association followed up on this issue by email on at least 5 occasions and by telephone on at least 3 occasions. Many of these enquiries appear to have gone unanswered by the landlord and this is not acceptable.
  3. There is conflicting evidence around two site visits that the landlord booked in July 2022, following the stage 1 complaint. The landlord’s records indicate that these were attended, but that the resident was not home on either occasion. The resident maintained, in her correspondence with the landlord, that she was working when the first visit was booked, but at home for the second, which the landlord did not attend. Additionally, the resident notes that the first appointment was booked without consultation at less than 24 hours notice. It was unreasonable of the landlord to book this appointment at such short notice and in future it is recommended that appointments are booked in consultation with the resident to avoid wasted or missed appointments.
  4. In December 2022, the landlord offered £300 compensation for the delays in repairing the cooker hob and confirmed that the hob would be replaced.
  5. The landlord conducted a site visit in April 2023 and found that the cooker hob was operational and had been for the duration of the complaint. The landlord suggested that the resident did not wish to change her  kitchenware to work on the ceramic hob and wanted it changed to a standard hob. The landlord considered that this would be a tenant improvement, for which it would not be liable. 
  6. As a result of this, the landlord rescinded part of its previous compensation offer, instead offering £150 for the delay with the fence installation only. The resident escalated her complaint to the Housing Complaints Panel who overturned this decision and reinstated the £300 compensation offer, due to the length of time taken to conduct the visit. The panel did not instruct any further repairs or replacements be undertaken, as the hob was functional.
  7. Overall, considering that the cooker hob was functional during this time period and that compensation of £300 has been offered in respect of the delays in conducting a visit, the landlord has provided reasonable redress, prior to this investigation which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, satisfactorily resolves this element of the complaint.

Installation of a fence

  1. The resident first reported issues with privacy in June 2021, via her residents’ association. The resident was concerned that members of the public could see into her property and that this was worsened by living adjacent to a tram stop. The resident explained that this often meant she kept her windows and curtains closed for privacy.
  2. The resident also stated that on one occasion, during a warmer period in June 2022, an intoxicated man had entered her property through her open patio doors, as there was no boundary to prevent this. The resident’s son had “run him out”, but she reported that this caused her great concern about her safety and security in her home.
  3. During a site visit in July 2022, the landlord noted that the existing planters served to demarcate the property from the street, but did not offer any privacy. It was at this point that a recommendation was made to install a 6 foot fence around the property to offer security and privacy.
  4. There is evidence that there were significant delays to the installation of the fence. The landlord attributed this to seeking budgetary approval for the expenditure needed. The landlord’s stage 2 complaint response included an apology for a 7 week delay in the installation of the fence and poor communication with the resident to explain the delays. Ultimately a fence was installed in January 2023, however this was only a 1 metre tall fence, rather than the 6 foot fence previously mentioned.
  5. The 6 foot fence was installed in May 2023, after the resident escalated her complaint to the Housing Complaints Panel, who upheld the decision to have a taller fence installed.
  6. Overall, there is evidence of significant delays with the installation of the fence as it took almost 2 years for the correct fence to be installed from the resident first reporting the issue with privacy. It is concerning to note this extended period of time, despite the resident reporting a home intrusion by an intoxicated man. It would have been reasonable for the landlord to accelerate this process to assist the resident with feeling safe and secure in her home. For these reasons, there has been maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the installation of the fence.

Complaint handling

  1. The landlord’s complaints policy outlines that it operates a two-stage complaint procedure, with responses at both stages being issued within 20 working days of receipt of the complaint. In addition, residents have a further optional appeal to a Housing Complaints Panel comprised of 12 of the landlord’s tenants and leaseholders. Alternatively, residents can opt to progress their complaint directly to the Ombudsman.
  2. The Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code), which is available on our website, sets out the requirements and principles for effective complaint handling. In particular, the Code operated at the time notes that stage 1 complaints should be responded to within 10 working days of receipt and this timescale has been applied in this determination.
  3. Within the complaint handling process, there was evidence of the landlord’s policy timescales being exceeded with both complaint responses. There is evidence of the landlord contacting the resident during the stage 2 complaint process to explain that there would be a delay, however in total, there were delays of 37 working days in issuing complaint responses. These unreasonable delays caused additional time and distress for the resident and delayed her being able to escalate her complaint to the Ombudsman.
  4. Alongside this, the landlord processes compensation claims separately to the complaint process. In this case, this resulted in the resident receiving a stage 2 complaint response in September 2022, followed by a further letter in December 2022, also discussing her complaint, but offering compensation of £300 for the delays. This had the effect of adding another informal complaint response several months after the initial stage 2 decision was sent. This process may cause confusion for residents and, from the evidence seen in this case, delayed compensation being considered and offered. The landlord should review its compensation processes to ensure that these are considered and paid in a timely way, alongside the relevant complaint response.
  5. Within the correspondence there was also a lack of clarity within the stage 1 complaint response as to whether or not the complaint was upheld. This is a vital piece of information in any complaint process and a requirement of the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code, which was in effect during this complaint.
  6. Overall, taking account of the delays and the unclear compensation process, this amounts to maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the complaint. The landlord has not previously offered any remedy for this, outside an apology for the delay in issuing its stage 2 response.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 53 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme the landlord has offered redress to the resident for the repairs to the cooker, prior to investigation which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, resolves this element of the complaint satisfactorily.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there has been:
    1. Maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for a fence to be installed.
    2. Maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Orders

  1. Within 28 days of the date of this determination, the landlord must:
    1. Pay the resident £700 compensation, comprised of:
      1. £300 compensation previously offered in its stage 2 complaint response, if it has not already done so.
      2. £300 for the distress and inconvenience caused by delays in erecting the fence.
      3. £100 for the failures in complaint handling.
    2. Review its processes for the assessment and payment of compensation to ensure that this is timely and considered alongside the related complaint.
    3. Review its complaint handling processes and templates to ensure that it clearly shows whether a complaint has been upheld at each stage.
    4. Provide this Service with evidence of compliance with these orders.