Manchester City Council (202215624)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202215624

Manchester City Council

26 September 2023

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 concerns regarding fire safety.
   2. reported lighting defects.
   3. the resident’s concerns about its out of hours reporting system for emergency repairs.
2. The landlord’s complaint handling has also been investigated.

Background

3. The resident is a leaseholder and lives in a flat. The landlord is the freeholder of the building and the communal areas are managed by a managing agent on behalf of the landlord. The building comprises a mix of retail and residential units.
4. On 9 August 2021 the resident raised a complaint about the lack of action from the landlord concerning fire hazardous materials being left outside the retail premises of the building and in the unsecured lock up under the stairs. The resident stated the materials were identified following a recent fire risk assessment at the property. As a resolution, the resident asked the landlord to arrange for the materials to be cleared away on a daily basis and not left overnight. He also wanted the landlord to repair the lock up unit and ensure it was kept secure and to stop the employees and owners of the retail premises from smoking outside the rear of the units.
5. The resident raised a further five complaints between 23 August 2021 and 31 January 2022 regarding the lack of action concerning the following:
   1. reported unsecured fire hazardous materials being left out.
   2. reported defective communal lighting that had been outstanding for 12 weeks.
   3. an accident the resident had as a result of defective communal internal and external lighting.
   4. concerns about the length of time taken to get through to the landlord’s out of hours emergency repairs system.
6. The landlord provided the resident with a stage two complaint response on 7 May 2022. The landlord failed to provide the resident with a stage one response to his complaint.
7. The landlord acknowledged its failure in responding to the previous complaints submitted by the resident since August 2021 and its failure to respond to the resident’s emails. The landlord outlined all the repairs it had completed between September 2021 and April 2022 in relation to the resident’s complaints, including repairs to the bin storage door and the internal and external lighting. The landlord advised it had identified repairs and carried out works to rectify defective lighting and to clean dirty carpets and the front entrance canopy during its two inspections in April 2022.
8. The landlord also stated it would complete the outstanding issues reported in May 2022, regarding materials being left overnight, a defective rear entrance light, the defective first floor bin shoot door and the defective first floor fire door. The landlord apologised for the inconvenience it had caused the resident and advised it aimed to improve the visibility and supervision of complaints by sharing lessons learnt with colleagues by 31 May 2022. It offered the resident £450 in compensation: £50 for the inconvenience caused and £400 for the delay in resolving the resident’s complaints.
9. The resident contacted the Ombudsman because he did not feel that the landlord had addressed all the issues he had raised.
10. The landlord has confirmed with the Ombudsman that the outstanding issues detailed in its stage two response were completed by July 2022. It also confirmed it had spoken to the main culprit who was leaving out unsecured materials and advised them that all rubbish must be placed in the metal bins and locked in the bin store. The management agent had also conducted daily checks of the areas and removed any waste found.

Assessment and findings

11. When investigating a complaint, the Ombudsman applies its Dispute Resolution Principles. These are high level good practice guidance developed from the Ombudsman’s experience of resolving disputes, for use by everyone involved in the complaints process. There are three principles driving effective dispute resolution:
    1. be fair – treat people fairly and follow fair processes;
    2. put things right, and;
    3. learn from outcomes.
12. 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 that a failing did lead to an adverse effect the investigation will then consider whether the landlord has taken enough action to ‘put things right’ and ‘learn from outcomes’.

Scope of investigation

13. The resident reported injuries he suffered as a result of an accident which he advised was caused by defective lighting. The Ombudsman does not doubt the resident’s comments about his injuries and we acknowledge that this incident must have been distressing for the resident. It is outside the Ombudsman’s role to draw conclusions on the causation of, or liability for, impacts on health and wellbeing. This is more appropriate to be dealt with through the courts as a personal injury claim as courts can call on medical experts and make legally binding judgements. Nonetheless, consideration has been given to the general distress and inconvenience which the situation may have caused the resident including the landlord’s response to the resident’s report of an injury.
14. The resident advised the Ombudsman the fire services were called on 17 November 2022 to tackle a fire because a bin of combustible material had been placed in the insecure bin store. Paragraph 42(a) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, which governs our service says that the Ombudsman may not consider complaints which ‘are made prior to having exhausted a member’s (landlord’s) complaints procedure, unless there is evidence of a complaint-handling failure and the Ombudsman is satisfied that the member has not taken action within a reasonable timescale’. In this instance the resident would need to log a new complaint with the landlord about this issue, as the Ombudsman has not seen evidence that the matter has exhausted the landlord’s complaints procedure. The resident may be able to bring the new complaint to the Ombudsman if he remains dissatisfied once it has been through the landlord’s complaints process.

Policies and procedures

15. The management agent’s fire safety policy states it aims to demonstrate that measures are in place to identify, manage, and mitigate risks associated with fire.
16. The aim of the management agent’s communal area policy is the effective management of the internal and external communal areas of residential premises and to ensure they are kept free from obstructions or hazards.
17. The management agent’s communal compliance inspections procedure states that inspections are carried out and completed within the calendar month from the last inspection unless there is a site-specific change to the inspection frequency. It advises when there is a serious risk to residents or their homes, it will attend within eight hours. The procedure details that standard lighting and light bulb replacement would be deemed as a non-emergency repair.
18. The management agent’s compensation amounts guidance states it will award up to £50 for service failures relating to delayed repairs, and up to £100 for other service failures. As a goodwill gesture it will award up to £100 for distress and inconvenience, and up to £100 for communication/delay in resolving complaints. The management agent can also award up to £100 for time and trouble, and where applicable award additional discretionary compensation.

The landlord’s handling of reported concerns regarding fire safety

19. The landlord failed to adequately address the resident’s concerns about fire safety within a reasonable period of time. The landlord’s records show it raised three jobs to repair the insecure bin store between August 2021 and September 2021, following the resident’s reports of fire safety concerns regarding hazardous materials being left unsecured initially raised by the resident on 9 August 2021.The landlord completed worked to ensure the bin store was securely locked on 7 September 2021. It also advised the household waste in the bins were changed every week. The landlord did not update the resident about the actions it was taking during this period.
20. It appears the landlord had taken adequate actions to address the reported issues within a reasonable period of time. However, the landlord failed to respond to the resident about the actions it had taken for nearly nine months. This is unacceptable and would have been highly frustrating and inconvenient for the resident, who had repeatedly reported fire safety concerns to the landlord and management agent over a number of months. The landlord should have kept the resident updated on its actions, which could have demonstrated that the landlord had taken his concerns seriously and was taking action to rectify the issues.
21. The landlord showed poor communication throughout its handling of the reported concerns. This has been considered when looking at compensation as detailed further below in this report.

The landlord’s handling of reported lighting defects

22. The resident reported there had been lighting defects for over several weeks prior to logging his complaint. As a non-emergency repair, the Ombudsman would have expected the landlord to rectify communal lighting issues within a month, which is the industry standard timescale for non-emergency repairs. It is not clear why the lighting defects remained outstanding for so long and the landlord failed to provide an explanation for its delay in rectifying the lighting.
23. The management agent’s communal compliance inspections procedure states onsite visual inspections are completed by housing management staff on multi-occupancy buildings with internal and external communal areas. The inspections should usually be carried out on a monthly basis, unless there is a site-specific change to the frequency. The Ombudsman has not been provided with evidence to show that monthly inspections were carried out during the period the resident was contacting the landlord and the management agent. The Ombudsman would have expected the issues reported by the resident to have been noted during the monthly inspections and the appropriate action taken by the management agent to resolve them at an earlier stage. The landlord should ensure the management agent is carrying out monthly inspections as per its procedure and is taking appropriate action to resolve any issues identified in these inspections.
24. The landlord also failed to update the resident on the actions it had taken in relation to the defective lighting. This is a concern given the resident had reported that the lighting had not been working for over several weeks. The landlord’s records show a number of lighting repairs had been carried out between November 2021 and February 2022, which does not appear to have been relayed to the resident. The lack of update would have caused avoidable distress and inconvenience to the resident. This has been taken into consideration when looking at compensation for the landlord’s errors.

The landlord recognised its error in failing to record the resident’s accident in the communal areas and corrected this by logging the accident in its incident management system. As previously explained, the Ombudsman is unable to determine whether the landlord was at fault for the accident occurring. However, the landlord should have provided the resident with the details of its liability insurer, in order to give the resident the option of making a personal injury claim if he had wanted to do so. In recognition of these failings, the landlord should compensate the resident.

The landlord’s handling of reported concerns about it’s out of hours reporting system for emergency repairs.

25. The landlord failed to address the resident’s complaint about the length of time it had taken to report an emergency repair, within a reasonable amount of time. The landlord’s internal records show it had carried out an investigation and reviewed its call log. The landlord’s records had details of the length of time the resident’s call was in the queue for. The investigation also found there had been staff sickness issues on the date of the call, which would have impacted call wait times.
26. It is not clear why the landlord did not provide its findings of this investigation to the resident. The landlord had the opportunity to address the resident’s complaint at an early stage, which would have demonstrated that it had taken action but failed to do so. This may reasonably have contributed to the resident’s loss of confidence in the landlord’s services.
27. The Ombudsman notes the landlord had taken points of learning from the resident’s complaints and advised it aimed to improve the visibility and supervision of complaints by sharing lessons learnt with colleagues. The landlord demonstrated it had identified a number of service failings in its failure to respond to reported issues, complaints raised and in communication with the resident. The landlord stated taken actions to prevent the identified failings from occurring again. While this is reasonable, the landlord could have provided the resident with some details the changes it would be implementing to the improve its service to reassure him that improvements would be made going forward.
28. The landlord acknowledged its service failings in communication with the resident and the inconvenience it had caused. It offered the resident a total of £450 in compensation for the inconvenience, in recognition of these failures and to put the issue right. The Ombudsman finds the amount of compensation offered as part of the overall complaint is sufficient to provide the resident with reasonable redress for the landlord’s failings. This is in line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance (published on our website) which recommends compensation of up to £600 is awarded in recognition of service failures which adversely affected the resident. The landlord’s offer of compensation is reasonable as it is in line with what the Ombudsman would have ordered if the landlord had not made an offer. Therefore, the landlord does not need to do anything further regarding this complaint.

Complaint Handling

29. The landlord’s customer feedback policy states it will acknowledge a complaint within five working days. It will aim to provide a stage one response within 10 working days and a stage two response within 20 working days of receiving a review request. The management agent’s complaints policy provides the same response timeframes as the landlord’s policy at stage one and stage two. It then states a resident can request for their complaint to be forwarded to the landlord if they are not satisfied with the stage two outcome. The management agent’s policy advises a stage three response to the complaint will be provided within 15 working days.
30. The landlord has provided the Ombudsman with two complaint policies, outlining different procedures and stages, one procedure belongs to the landlord and the other belongs to the managing agent. The landlord is entitled to use a management agent to answer complaints on its behalf. However, it should be made very clear to residents who they can complain to at each stage in the process. It was unclear which complaints process the resident was expected to follow, which led to him raising complaints with both the landlord and the management agent. The landlord should ensure it is made clear to residents which complaints procedure they are expected to go through and that it is in line with the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code, which sets out our expectations of landlord’s complaint handling practices. The code states a landlord’s complaints procedure should comprise of two stages. Any management agents acting on behalf of the landlord should follow the same complaints procedure.
31. Both the management agent and the landlord failed to respond to the resident’s complaints within accordance with their complaints policies. It is of significant concern that neither the management agent nor the landlord acknowledged any of the resident’s complaints until 2 March 2022, despite the first complaint being raised on 9 August 2021. The landlord did not provide the resident with a stage 2 (final) complaint response until 7 May 2022, 187 working days after the original complaint was raised. The lack of communication and delay would have significantly inconvenienced the resident because he was left without a response or any update for a sustained period of time while the issues were on-going.
32. Given the resident’s continuous correspondence to the management agent and the landlord concerning his complaints and his requests for updates, it is concerning that neither addressed the matter at an earlier stage when there was every opportunity to do so. The landlord has not adequately explained why it failed to provide any stage 1 responses to the resident’s complaints or why it took so long to provide the resident with a stage 2 response. The landlord took 46 working days to provide the resident with a stage 2 response following its acknowledgement of the resident’s complaints which was not a reasonable timeframe and was not in line with its complaints policy or the code.
33. The landlord’s stage 2 response acknowledged the resident’s complaint about it taking 3 hours to report emergency repairs and detailed the works it had completed in relation to the reported repair. However, the landlord failed to provide the outcome of the investigation it had carried out regarding this complaint point. The code sets out the Ombudsman’s expectation of landlords’ complaint handling practices and providing full responses to complaints. The code states ‘landlords must address all points raised in the complaint and provide clear reasons for any decisions, referencing the relevant policy, law and good practice where appropriate’. The landlord should have ensured that it fully addressed the complaint raised in its response and not just provide dates for when the repairs were completed. This would have provided a full explanation to the resident on the landlord’s position.
34. The Service considers that the landlord had demonstrated poor complaint handling throughout and did not follow its complaints process or the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code. In accordance with the service’s remedies guidance as set out above, the landlord should pay the resident £300 compensation in recognition of its failure to meet its service standards in complaint handling and its failure in fully addressing all concerns raised.

Determination

35. In accordance with paragraph 53 (b) of the Scheme, the landlord has offered redress to the resident in relation to its handling of the reported concerns about fire safety, defective lighting and its out of hours reporting system for emergency repairs prior to investigation which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, resolves the complaint satisfactorily.
36. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration with respect to the landlord’s complaints handling.

Orders

37. The landlord is to pay the resident £300 in compensation for the failures identified with its complaint handling.
38. The compensation awarded by this Service should be treated separately from any existing financial arrangements between the landlord and resident and should not be offset against any rent arrears.
39. The landlord is to confirm compliance with the above order within four weeks of the date of this decision.

Recommendations

40. It is recommended the landlord conducts regular inspections of the communal areas in line with procedure and where possible, inform residents of when the inspections will be taking place. The landlord should ensure any issues identified in such inspections are resolved in a timely manner, in line with its repair and maintenance responsibilities.
41. It is recommended the landlord provide the resident with its liability insurer’s details (if it has one) so that the resident can make a claim if he wants to for the injury he sustained.
42. The Ombudsman recommends the landlord reviews its complaints process and makes it clear to residents who they can complain to at each stage in the process.
43. The Ombudsman recommends that the landlord reviews the management agent’s complaints policy, so that its complaint stages align with the stages set out in the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code.