London Borough of Harrow (202344547)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202344547

London Borough of Harrow

21 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

  1. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of:
    1. the resident’s reports of defective windows.
    2. the resident’s reports of repairs required to the roof.
    3. the associated complaint.

Background

  1. The resident holds a secure tenancy with the landlord, which is a local authority. The property is a 2-bedroom end-of-terrace house which she lives in with her husband and young daughter. There are no vulnerabilities recorded for the household, however she was pregnant during the timeline of her complaint.
  2. The resident first reported concerns about her windows on 25 August 2021. She explained that some of them did not open, and some did not lock. The landlord arranged for an inspection on 21 September 2021. It noted that several windows were “not functioning” and needed handles and hinges replacing throughout. A referral was made to the landlord’s property investment team (PIT).
  3. On 6 October 2021 the PIT confirmed that the windows were due to be renewed by April 2023, and the resident was updated on the same day by phone. On 18 February 2022 the resident reported that following a storm, the whole window frame in her child’s bedroom had become loose. The landlord then recorded limited further interaction with the resident until she made a formal complaint on 21 January 2024. She said that:
    1. She had received an unsatisfactory response on the proposed window replacement, despite continual chasing. She was living with “dysfunctional” windows that were draughty and impacting her heating bills.
    2. A metal sheet had fallen from the roof onto the ground, narrowly missing her husband. Had it hit him or her daughter, she felt they would have been seriously injured. She had ongoing concerns about the safety of the property.
    3. The situation had caused her “huge stress” and nervousness.
  4. The landlord responded to the resident at stage 1 of its complaint process on 26 January 2024. It said that it would speak to its PIT about when the window replacement was due to take place. If she had concerns about loose roof tiles, she should report the matter to its customer service team and request a surveyor visit.
  5. The resident requested an escalation to her complaint on the same day. She said that:
    1. Key aspects of her complaint had been overlooked. She had already approached the PIT on several occasions and the responses she had received had been unhelpful.
    2. She had been promised a surveyor would contact her about the roof, but the issue remained unresolved.
    3. The landlord had failed to provide a timeframe for any resolution, or an apology for its poor communication. It had also completely disregarded her concerns about the safety of her family.
  6. The landlord provided the resident with a stage 2 complaint response on 15 March 2024. It said that:
    1. It was sorry for its poor communication and the delay in providing her with a final response.
    2. It had asked its project manager to prioritise her property for window renewal on the current programme. The contract was being finalised and measurement surveys would be undertaken within 2 weeks. There was a consultation event she could attend to raise any further concerns she had.
    3. It had requested that a surveyor inspect loose roof tiles, flashing and guttering. It would monitor the situation closely and ensure the timescales it had given were adhered to.
  7. In May 2024 the landlord referred the roof works to its surveyor. On 7 October 2024 the resident informed the Ombudsman that the windows had been replaced approximately 3 weeks earlier. She reported that the difference the new windows had made was “incredible” but could not understand why it had taken so long for the landlord to resolve the issue.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

  1. The Ombudsman recognises that the situation has caused the resident distress as she has experienced delayed repairs to her property over a prolonged period of time. Aspects of the resident’s complaint relate to the impact her living conditions had on her health, particularly around the time she was postpartum. The Ombudsman accepts that the resident experienced difficulties with her health around the time her child was born and does not underestimate her concerns about the impact draughty windows had on the health of the family. Unlike a court the Ombudsman cannot establish what caused the health issue or determine liability and award damages. This would usually be dealt with as a personal injury claim through the courts. However, where the Ombudsman identifies failure on a landlord’s part, we can consider the resulting distress and inconvenience.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of defective windows

  1. The resident first moved into the property in June 2021. The landlord’s first recorded repair about the windows was raised on 25 August 2021, when the resident explained that some did not open at all, and some would not lock. In accordance with the landlord’s repairs charter, “any effect that puts the resident in immediate danger” would be classed as an emergency repair. It goes on to explain that unsecure ground floor windows would meet the criteria for a response within 4 hours.
  2. It would be reasonable to assume that if the resident could not open her windows, she could have been placed at risk. However, there is no evidence that the landlord sought to establish which windows were affected or the extent of the issue in a timely manner, and it did not attend the property for 19 working days. The delay was unreasonable and contributed to the resident’s distress.
  3. It is not disputed by the landlord that during its visit to inspect the property on 21 September 2021, the windows were “not functioning from void stage”. There is no evidence that the landlord sought to address the matter with its voids team, however it did make a referral to its PIT on the same day which was appropriate.
  4. The landlord notified the resident in a timely manner that the PIT had confirmed the windows would be replaced by April 2023. Given that there would potentially be 18 months before the landlord would renew the windows it would have been reasonable for it to have considered what repairs it could complete in the meantime to ensure the immediate safety of the windows, and to improve the situation for the resident.
  5. In the absence of a surveyor’s assessment of the property, there is no evidence that the landlord recorded any rationale for any decisions it had made to defer repairs to the windows. As a result, it left the windows in the same condition between September 2021 and February 2022. The delay was unreasonable and did not demonstrate that the landlord kept the windows in a good state of repair in accordance with its obligations under section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985.
  6. As a result of the landlord’s failure to repair any of the windows in a timely manner, the resident reported considerable damage following a night of heavy storms. On 18 February 2022 she reported that the window in the room where her baby slept had become loose from the frame and was at risk of falling out. On this occasion the landlord attended the property on the same day which was appropriate. However, it did not record the outcome of its visit, nor did it undertake a risk assessment to consider the individual circumstances of the household.
  7. It is vital that landlords keep clear, accurate and easily accessible records to provide an audit trail. The Ombudsman would expect a landlord to keep a robust record of contacts and repairs, yet the evidence has not been comprehensive in this case. If we investigate a complaint, we will ask for the landlord’s records. If there is disputed evidence and no audit trail, we may not be able to conclude that an action took place or that the landlord followed its own policies and procedures.
  8. In this case, the landlord failed to record the outcome of the visit on 18 February 2022. According to the resident, the landlord screwed the frame to the wall but left considerable gaps which led to cold air coming into the property. The resident had a young baby at the time and recalls seeking the support of her father to phone the landlord on several occasions to raise concerns about the impact it was having on her health and her heating bills. She recalls the period of time which coincided with the birth of her baby was particularly stressful and when she phoned the landlord, she was told there was no record of her previous contact.
  9. While there is no evidence to support her claims, there have been significant gaps in the landlord’s records of communication with the resident. For example, the landlord has been unable to demonstrate that it updated the resident about the pending window renewal from October 2021 until it provided her with a final response on 15 March 2024. The delay of 29 months was excessive and did not demonstrate that the landlord had taken the resident’s concerns seriously.
  10. The Ombudsman’s open letter to chief executives on 10 July 2024 explains the importance of landlords maintaining decent homes that are safe, secure and have well maintained windows. Despite the landlord acknowledging that the resident’s windows were “not functioning” in September 2021, it did not replace them for approximately 3 years. Throughout this time there is no evidence that the landlord conducted a risk assessment or evidenced its rationale for deferring repairs. As a result, the impact on the resident has been significant, as she has been left worried about the safety of her family over a prolonged period of time.
  11. The landlord failed in its service to the resident. The landlord’s compensation policy states that it will assess financial compensation for service failure alongside the impact caused to the resident and their household. It references that residents with young children will be considered as being vulnerable when calculating an offer of compensation, if there was “significant inconvenience and upset”. As the policy does not set out specific amounts for financial awards that would reflect the situation in the resident’s case, compensation has been ordered in line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance.
  12. Overall, there have been significant failings in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of defective windows which amount to severe maladministration. It failed to communicate with effectively with the resident about the pending upgrade to her windows and it did not carry out a risk assessment which considered the individual needs of the household. The landlord failed to explain its rationale for deferring any repairs and its complaint responses failed to acknowledge the resident’s experience over a period of approximately 3 years.
  13. In recent correspondence with the Ombudsman the resident has advised that some snagging works to the new windows remain outstanding. An order has been made for the landlord to contact the resident about her concerns and provide her with a written update and plan of action.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of repairs required to the roof

  1. The Ombudsman does not doubt the resident’s claim that she had been reporting concerns about the roof prior to making a complaint. However, the landlord has no record of being made aware of works being required to the roof until 21 January 2024.
  2. In accordance with the landlord’s repairs charter, the definition of an emergency repair is “any defect that is either an immediate danger to your safety, security or health, or something that may lead to serious damage to the property”. Given this, it would have been reasonable for the landlord to have treated the matter as an emergency repair and arranged for attendance to the property within 4 hours to inspect the safety of the roof.
  3. The landlord failed to raise a job in accordance with its obligations and prioritise attendance accordingly. The stage 1 complaint response it gave the resident on 26 January 2024 was inappropriate and did not demonstrate that it understood the severity of the issue, or the potential risk posed to the resident and her family. It put the onus back on her to contact its customer service department which was unreasonable and demonstrated a lack of ownership.
  4. While the landlord raised a repair to its roofing contractors on the same day that it sent the resident the stage 2 final response on 15 March 2024, there is no evidence that it consulted with its surveyor in a timely manner. Evidence shows that on 14 May 2024, approximately 2 months later, the surveyor commented that it was the “first time I have heard of this repair”. This demonstrates poor communication between the landlord’s internal teams and a failure to adopt a coordinated approach to address the issue.
  5. On 12 April 2024 the roofing contractor notified the landlord that it had tried contacting the resident without success. While it is not disputed that the difficulties the contractor had in contacting the resident contributed to the delays, the landlord did not make direct contact with her until 1 May 2024. The delay was inappropriate, and repairs were not completed until around 8 May 2024.
  6. There is no evidence that the landlord considered a financial remedy for the distress the situation caused the resident or the time and trouble she experienced in chasing it for an update, which was unreasonable. The landlord’s compensation policy says that it will consider an award of compensation for service failure, including its failure to meet service standards. The policy does not specify parameters for this. Compensation has therefore been ordered in recognition of the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident in line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance.
  7. Overall, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of repairs required to the roof. The landlord failed to take ownership of the repair and the roof was not inspected for approximately 4 months. The landlord did not adopt the Ombudsman’s dispute resolution principles of “be fair, put things right and learn from outcomes”. Its complaint responses lacked recognition for distress which had been caused to the resident, and it failed to set out any learning to ensure the situation did not happen again.

The landlord’s handling of the associated complaint

  1. The resident made her complaint to the landlord on 21 January 2024. The landlord responded within the timescale expected in accordance with its complaints policy, which was appropriate. The landlord did not contact the resident before responding to her complaint. As a result, it failed to confirm its understanding of the resident’s complaint and did not establish the outcome the resident was seeking.
  2. The landlord’s stage 1 response failed to investigate the matter thoroughly, demonstrated a lack of empathy and failed to recognise the impact on the resident. There is no evidence that it reviewed its contact records, and it did not take ownership of the issue to establish what the situation was with the PIT prior to providing the resident with a response. This caused her evident frustration which is demonstrated in her request to escalate the complaint on the same day.
  3. There is no evidence that the landlord acknowledged the resident’s request to escalate her complaint on 26 January 2021 in accordance with its policy and records show she had to chase it for a response on 2 February 2024. This caused the resident unnecessary time, trouble and inconvenience.
  4. Internal correspondence on the same day shows that members of the landlord’s staff were confused about the status of the resident’s complaint. For example, the repairs technical officer noted “she wants a date as to when her stage 2 will be answered but it still doesn’t seem to be on the complaints spreadsheet, and I am not exactly sure how the whole complaint process works”. This demonstrates a lack of general awareness and staff training about the complaints process. Furthermore, there was a failure to keep transparent and accurate records about the status of the resident’s complaint.
  5. The landlord again failed to contact the resident before issuing a final response. This was a missed opportunity for it to establish all that the resident was dissatisfied with so it could understand what outcome she was seeking. Although the landlord apologised for the delay in responding to her complaint at stage 2 of its process, it did not acknowledge that its stage 1 response had lacked a thorough investigation. Furthermore, it failed to put matters right or set out any learning from her experience.
  6. Despite requests from the Ombudsman, the landlord was delayed in providing robust records for the purpose of this investigation. On 17 September 2024, it provided partially completed evidence late, noting it was “yet to receive information from staff”. This further supports that the landlord’s staff were unclear on the importance of maintaining open and accurate records which are important in order to complete an accurate complaint investigation.
  7. In accordance with the landlord’s compensation policy, it can award up to £50 for poor complaint handling. There is no evidence that the landlord considered its own policy and did not offer a financial remedy to put matters right for the resident. The Ombudsman has therefore ordered compensation in line with our remedies guidance for maladministration, as the landlord’s maximum offer of £50 falls within the bracket for service failure and we find the failings to have been more serious.
  8. Overall, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the associated complaint. It failed to make direct contact with the resident to establish all that she was dissatisfied with and what she sought as an outcome. The initial response lacked adequate considerable investigation into her concerns and the landlord’s final response failed to acknowledge where it had failed in its complaint service. As a result, the landlord failed to put matters right for the resident and it did not learn from the outcome of her complaint.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was severe maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of defective windows.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of repairs required to the roof.
  3. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the associated complaint.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

  1. Within 4 weeks, the landlord is ordered to:
    1. Arrange for a senior member of staff responsible for the landlord’s housing function to apologise to the resident in writing for the failings identified in this report. In doing so, the landlord should set out what it has learnt from her experience.
    2. Pay the resident £1,700 in compensation. The amount is to be paid directly to the resident and not offset against any arrears. The amount includes:
      1. £1,000 in recognition of the distress, inconvenience, time and trouble caused to the resident as a result of the landlord’s handling of her reports of defective windows.
      2. £600 in recognition of the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident as a result of the landlord’s handling of her reports of repairs required to the roof.
      3. £100 in recognition of the time and inconvenience caused to the resident by the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.
    3. Contact the resident to establish her recent concerns about the quality of the recent installation of the windows. In doing so it should consider sending a surveyor to assess the quality of the works. A plan of action must be shared in writing with both the resident and the Ombudsman.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 54.g. of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord is ordered to carry out a senior management review of case to identify what went wrong and what it would do differently. This should be presented to the senior leadership team and the Ombudsman within 6 weeks. The review should include, but is not limited to:
    1. An explanation of why the failings identified by this investigation occurred.
    2. An explanation of how the landlord intends to prevent similar failings from occurring in the future, using the Ombudsman’s window-related complaints guidance.
    3. An explanation of how the landlord will follow up on reports of repairs, book them in a timely manner and maintain oversight of any that go overdue. It should also review its communication with its surveyors with regards to more complex repairs.
    4. A review of its handling of the resident’s complaint and provide an explanation of how it will ensure that all future responses adopt the Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles of “be fair, put things right and learn from outcomes”.

Recommendation

  1. It recommended that the landlord utilises the Housing Ombudsman’s Centre for Learning and gives consideration to arranging staff attendance to its virtual workshops on:
    1. Window related complaints.
    2. Knowledge and Information Management (KIM).
    1. Attitudes, Respect and Rights for case handlers.