Mid Suffolk District Council (201911656)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 201911656

Mid Suffolk District Council

27 August 2021

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

The complaint is about:
1. The landlord’s handling of repairs carried out at the resident’s new property.
2. The landlord’s handling of reports that contractors damaged the resident’s possessions.
3. The landlord’s handling of the reports about the conduct of contractors at the property, including concerns over adherence to Covid-19 rules, operatives mocking a disabled person, and smoking and eating whilst at the new property.

Background and summary of events

The resident has had a secure tenancy with the landlord since 25 November 2019. The resident’s current property is referred to as the “new property” within this report and is a four-bedroom house with a garage where the resident lives with his wife and three children.
It is noted that the resident has made reference to events occurring as far back as 2015 when bringing the complaint to the Ombudsman. This investigation will look at events from November 2019 onwards as this is when the events begin that are relevant to the matters complained about to the landlord and taken through its complaints procedure before being brought to the Ombudsman for investigation.
In November 2019, the landlord was undertaking arrangements for the resident to move into a new property, including carrying out void works on the new property. On 13 November 2019, the landlord wrote to the resident stating that it had visited the new property and confirmed that, other than a small job required on the wall of the master bedroom, it was happy with the work that had been carried out. It noted that the asbestos survey was still outstanding, which meant it could not yet release any keys or allow any work/fittings to be undertaken. It anticipated that the sign up would take place early the next week.
On 15 November 2019, the landlord wrote to the resident, noting that the resident had been unhappy with its conduct. It noted that the move of the kind being undertaken was unusual for the landlord and its internal processes had not coped as well as it would have liked. It had been delayed by the need to carry out an asbestos survey, which was done at the beginning of the process but needed to be redone after it expired three months later. Because of delays prior to the resident being offered the property and the extensive works it had carried out in anticipation of the move, the three-month deadline was overrun. It noted it hoped to receive the report early the next week. A similar situation had occurred with the electrical safety check, which it was also booking in for early the next week.
Regarding various repairs that the resident had contacted it about, the landlord noted that the repair to a crack in the wall was being done that day. Additionally, the resident had drawn attention to a leaking gutter which was penetrating the brickwork around the backdoor frame, a leaking down pipe and a lock having not been fitted on the back gate. It had raised these issues as repair jobs but suggested that they should not, in themselves, delay the move. The carpet company had been provisionally booked in for 5 December 2019. It noted the provisional removal date was 26 November 2019, and that the asbestos and electrical safety checks should be done by then which would mean the tenancy could commence.
In November 2019, the resident raised a complaint regarding the management of his house move, the standard of decorative works and the conduct of a staff member when communicating with contractors working at the property.
On 3 December 2019, the landlord contacted the resident to update him on the progress of the complaint. It summarised various elements of the complaint received from the resident including that the needs of the resident and his family were not properly considered or met, and that the new property was not let to the resident in a suitable condition.
The landlord proposed the following actions:
1. A senior surveyor who was responsible for the contractors in the case would contact the resident separately to arrange his own visit to inspect the property. At this visit the surveyor would discuss the standard the property was handed over in, agree what other work may be required, and provide a specific response to the complaint about the behaviour and attitude of the contractors.
2. The landlord would arrange a meeting with a particular staff member to discuss the complaint about their behaviour and attitude on the recent visit.
3. The landlord’s staff would put aside time over the following weeks to review the case and address the points of complaint.
4. A meeting would be arranged with the resident at a mutually convenient time, likely in January 2020, to discuss its findings and the lessons learned.
The outstanding repairs were completed in early December 2019.
On 6 February 2020, the landlord provided its complaint response regarding the move to the new property. It included a copy of its proposed new decant policy. It asked if it could visit the resident to discuss the policy in more detail and proposed 17 February 2020 as a possible date. It acknowledged that it did not achieve its goal of carrying out the move as smoothly as possible. It apologised that it had underestimated the amount of work that was required. It noted that its staff had worked very hard to meet the resident’s needs, but that it let itself down with poor internal communications which left staff members unclear about progress. It summarised various points of the complaint including that:
1. The needs of the family, particularly the resident’s son, were not met, given the resident’s new property was not let in a suitable standard.
2. That staff and contractors who visited the resident on 2 December 2019 were rude and threatening.
The landlord addressed each point of the complaint as follows:
1. Regarding the needs of the family not being met, it felt its staff had tried hard to meet the needs, for example, by working to complete the decorating before the resident moved in. However, it acknowledged the standard of work was not good enough and so work had to be finished while the resident was living in the new property. There was also confusion with the landlord attempting to bring the tenancy starting date forward to get the family into the property as soon as possible. It acknowledged this was a mistake and that it should have stuck to the original estimate given this turned out to be the date on which the move-in went ahead and it would have caused less confusion and uncertainty.
2. Regarding the standard of the property the resident moved into, it stated that it was let to a much higher standard than it would normally provide, but not as high a standard as the landlord expected given that it had arranged for re-decoration throughout. It apologised that it had had to return to carry out further works after the resident had moved in.
3. Regarding the conduct of its staff and contractors at the attendance, it apologised for the conduct and any offence caused. It noted this had been addressed with each individual involved. It explained that the frustration caused by the landlord constantly changing goals caused the staff additional pressures that the resident should not have been exposed to. The frustrations of this affected their conduct, coming to a head on the aforementioned day, and their actions and comments were not respectful of the resident.
On 17 February 2020, a job order was raised for the gutters and downpipe to be cleared and minor repairs made to the roof of the main house and garage.
Later in February 2020, the landlord’s contractors attended the property but did not have all necessary equipment or parts to complete the job. Before they were able to return to complete the work, the national lockdown came into force as a result of the Covid-19 pandemic.
On 27 May 2020, the Ombudsman contacted the landlord noting that the resident had raised a complaint about the landlord’s handling of his request that it repair his roof and gutters and carry out other outstanding repairs. It requested that the landlord provide a formal complaint response to the resident.
On 13 July 2020, the outstanding works were completed.
On 20 July 2020, the resident reported to the landlord that contractors had purposely caused stress to the resident’s family by being rude and failing to follow any Covid-19 safety procedures.
On 2 September 2020, the landlord emailed the resident setting out its response to the various complaints:
1. It noted it had previously responded to a complaint about his move to the new property and issues he had experienced upon arrival. It noted it would review these to ensure everything possible had been done to resolve the outstanding issues, and would provide an updated response.
2. It asked for confirmation of its definition of the new complaint, being:
  1. That contractors from a particular company were scheduled to work at the property despite him being told previously that this company would carry out any works at the property.
  2. That said contractors caused damage to his personal property.
  3. That said contractors exhibited unprofessional and upsetting behaviour, including smoking whilst on the premises, eating and drinking, not wearing appropriate personal protective equipment, refusing to wipe down surfaces, not washing their hands in accordance with Covid-19 safety precautions and mocking disabled members of the household.
  4. That there were outstanding works at the property including the installation of a drain cover, the replacement of watertight flooring and fixing of damage to the bathroom that was allegedly caused by recent work, repointing to the roof, air bricks at the side of the house with broken plastic grilles and multiple window panes needing replacing.
As at 9 September 2020, the landlord’s internal emails noted the repairs referred to as outstanding in the complaint had been raised. On 16 September 2020, the work for the drain cover and air bricks was booked in by the landlord.
On 5 October 2020, the landlord provided its complaint response to the resident in which it set out the following:
1. The complaint received in November 2019 regarding the resident’s concerns about the management of his house move, the standard of decorative works and the conduct of a staff member had been reviewed, and the landlord was satisfied that its stage one response had appropriately addressed the points raised.
2. The more recent complaint raised by the Housing Ombudsman and received in May 2020 concerned the handling of the repairs to the resident’s roof and gutters along with a lack of response from the landlord to a complaint about staff conduct. It noted that following the raising of a job order, contractors attended the property within a fortnight but did not have the necessary equipment to complete the job, and before they returned the national Covid-19 lockdown came into force. As a result, the works were not completed until 13 July 2020. It acknowledged that it was upholding the complaint regarding the roof repairs and apologised for the inconvenience and uncertainty this had caused his family. It noted it would use the complaint to review and improve its processes.
3. With regards to the conduct of staff, it understood this to be about the behaviour of staff who attended the property during decorative works for which he raised a complaint in November 2019. It noted it expected all officers to behave in a professional and respectful manner at all times and on this occasion this was not done, apologising to the resident.
On 9 November 2020, the Ombudsman wrote to the landlord at the resident’s request asking that the landlord provide an update to the resident or escalate the complaint.
On 12 November 2020, the resident provided the landlord with CCTV footage of what he purported to be the landlord’s contractors damaging his possessions.
On 13 December 2020, the landlord’s internal emails indicated that the work on the drain cover, bathroom flooring and other damage, roof repointing, air bricks and window panes remained outstanding. Follow-up emails within that week indicated that the work would be completed in the new year.
On 14 January 2021, the landlord provided its final complaint response in which it set out the following:
1. Having reviewed the CCTV provided by the resident and taken statements from the relevant contractors, it partially upheld the complaint that said contractors had caused damage to the resident’s personal property. It noted that there was insufficient evidence for it to confirm that all damages were caused by the contractors. It expected that contractors would not touch residents’ personal items without specific permission and also expected them to discuss any damage that they may have caused with residents at their earliest opportunity. Feedback had been passed on to the contractors.
2. Regarding the conduct of the contractors, it noted that they had confirmed smoking within the boundaries of the property but advised that at no point were they asked not to. It had asked its contractors to update their policy and training to include a requirement that a resident be asked before eating, drinking or smoking on site occurs. The contractors had confirmed that they had carried out Covid-secure measures as they were in place at the time, but it was noted that an important element of said measures was that the resident felt secure. It apologised that the resident did not feel protected by the measures. Noting that it had reviewed the measures, it reassured the resident that they met all government guidelines at the time. It also noted that the resident’s comments about the contractors allegedly commenting on his family’s disabilities had been passed on to the contractors, and were being addressed. It was focused upon ensuring the conduct met the same values as the landlord.
3. It apologised for the delay in addressing the repairs, noting its repair service had been significantly impacted by the Covid-19 pandemic. It stated that once it could progress on those matters, it would assign a dedicated officer to better manage communication between the resident and itself. It also apologised for the delay in providing the complaint response.
4. It offered compensation of £500 to the resident consisting of:
  1. £250 for the distress caused by the behaviour of its operatives.
  2. £175 for possible damages caused by its operatives.
  3. £75 for time taken to investigate the matters raised.
5. It acknowledged that the level of service it had provided had been below its expected standards, and set out that it was taking the following action with regards to its contractors:
  1. Reminding them to communicate with residents before moving possessions during works.
  2. Reminding them of the importance of notifying residents of possible disruption caused due to works and any impact these may have upon possessions.
  3. Reviewing the contractors Onsite Behaviour Policy to ensure that operatives do not engage in behaviour that may cause distress to residents including eating, drinking or smoking.
  4. Reviewing the contractors diversity and equality training and ensuring all operatives are up to date.

Policies and Procedures

The landlord’s repairs policy notes that the landlord is responsible for repairs to:
1. Drains and sewage maintenance (excluding blockages).
2. External painting.
3. Asbestos surveys and removal.
4. Bathroom fittings.
5. Structural repairs including ceilings, floors and walls (except for cracks less than 4mm which are for resident’s to repair).
6. Floor coverings in bathrooms and kitchens.
7. Windows.
The above are largely considered to be routine repairs, which the landlord must attend within 20 working days.
The landlord’s compensation policy notes that compensation may be appropriate in circumstances where a particular matter cannot be put right as financial loss or distress may have already been incurred. An instance where compensation may be considered is where exceptional worry, distress or inconvenience has been caused to the resident, or where a resident has had to spend an unreasonable amount of time pursuing a complaint. Payment may be appropriate here in recognition of these factors.

Assessment and findings

Repairs

As of 13 November 2019, the landlord had visited the new property and confirmed that the majority of void works had been completed, save for minor work to the wall of the master bedroom. The resident disagreed with this assessment, writing to the landlord in mid–November and stating that there remained other issues at the property including a crack in the wall, a leaking gutter, a leaking down pipe and a lock having not been fitted on the back gate. The landlord’s complaint responses indicated that it was prioritising moving the resident into the property with his family and noted that these repair issues would not delay the move. It was appropriate that the landlord arranged for the attendance of a surveyor at the property to agree on any final outstanding works, as this gave the resident the chance to raise any concerns about what work remained to be done. On this basis, works were completed promptly by early December 2019. This demonstrated an appropriate response to the issue once it had become clear that there were delays while the move was carried out. The landlord has acknowledged and apologised for these delays, providing feedback to its staff and this was a reasonable response to this aspect of the complaint.
Following the resident moving in, there were additional repair issues raised, though it is not apparent from the evidence exactly when these reports were made. Evidence of new repair issues then becomes apparent and a repair to the resident’s roof was raised as a job order on 17 February 2020. However, when contractors attended the property later in February 2020, they did not have the necessary equipment to complete the job which required another appointment to be booked in. Unfortunately, before this could occur the government-mandated Covid-19 lockdown came into force which meant the job was not completed until 13 July 2020. While the landlord cannot be held responsible for the delay caused by the lockdown, there was a failing in its initial inability to carry out the repair in February 2020.
The landlord has stated that its response to the resident’s repair reports was significantly impacted by the limitations on service caused by the Covid-19 pandemic and subsequent government lockdowns. This is a fair response considering the impact this had on the provision of contractors services particularly from March 2020 to June 2020 during the first lockdown. It is acknowledged that between 28 March 2020 and 1 June 2020, landlords were advised by the government that access to properties was only proposed for serious and urgent issues due to the Covid-19 pandemic.
On 1 June 2020, the guidance was amended to advise that “where workforce is available and resources allow, landlords or contractors are now able to visit more properties to carry out both routine and essential inspections and repairs…”. Following the lifting of lockdown restrictions, the landlord’s repair records indicate that the issues outstanding at the time were resolved by 13 July 2020. While there was a delay for the works being finalised after the lockdown was lifted, the works were of a routine priority and the landlord has explained that it prioritised urgent repairs in the immediate aftermath of restrictions being lifted. This was a reasonable approach to take, however it is of concern that the works remained outstanding for a total of six weeks.
Given the restrictions faced by the landlord in the previous month, its explanation to the resident that plastering works were delayed due to its need to prioritise outstanding works was reasonable and it would not be fair to criticise the landlord for any delay in May and June 2020 given that there is no evidence to confirm that the works were urgent.
When additional repair issues became apparent in September 2020, including the work required to a drain cover, bathroom flooring, roof repointing, air bricks and replacement of window panes, there were delays by the landlord in responding to these. The evidence indicates that the work remained outstanding as of mid-December 2020, with the work to be carried out in the new year. There were delays during this period that the landlord cannot be held entirely responsible for given there were additional government lockdowns during this period, specifically from 5 November 2020 to 2 December 2020, although the national guidance at the time noted that landlords could still carry out repairs if in line with public health advice. Additionally, this lockdown did not come into force until approximately two months after it became clear there were new repair issues.
Considering all of the circumstances here, the various smaller jobs should have still been arranged and finalised within a matter of weeks in line with the landlord’s repair policies. Even allowing for delays of approximately a month due to the November 2020 lockdown, the work should have been finalised before this came into effect. Therefore, there were failings by the landlord in its response to the repairs and the landlord has not acknowledged this when responding to the complaint.
The landlord’s compensation policy notes that it may be appropriate for the landlord to pay compensation to a resident in circumstances such as these, given the resident experienced distress and inconvenience as a result of the works being outstanding for a number of months in the later part of 2020 and early 2021. The landlord should have made an offer of financial compensation on this complaint given the recognised negative impact the delays had on the resident.

Alleged damage by contractors to the resident’s personal property

The Ombudsman cannot make a finding on damage to personal property in terms of establishing that the landlord or its contractors were responsible for alleged damage from a liability perspective, nor can it order for damages to be paid as a remedy for the cost of the items lost. Rather, it can consider the response of the landlord to the resident’s reports of damage and request for reimbursement, in the light of its policies and all the circumstances of the case.
The 14 January 2021, complaint response noted that the landlord was partially upholding the complaint about the contractors. It came to this conclusion in a reasonable fashion by undertaking an investigation of the issue on the basis of the available evidence. Specifically, it reviewed the available CCTV footage provided by the resident and took statements from the relevant contractors about the incidents in question. While noting that there was insufficient evidence to establish without doubt that the contractors had been the cause of all of the damage, it acted appropriately by partially upholding the complaint and offering compensation of £175 to the resident.
The landlord’s steps in response to the complaint were reasonable in the circumstances. It acknowledged the resident’s complaint, carried out an investigation by considering the evidence provided to it by the resident and gathered additional evidence by speaking to the alleged perpetrators of the damage. The landlord has provided a reasonable explanation for its conclusions by referring to the limitations of the video footage, and its decision to award the resident financial compensation was a reasonable attempt to resolve the matter and put things right.

Conduct of contractors

The landlord acknowledged in its complaint response of 6 February 2020 that the behaviour of its staff and contractors had been unacceptable. While it provided an explanation for the difference from their usual conduct, being that information was being poorly communicated between staff and additional pressures were being put on various individuals, it did not attempt to excuse the results. Rather, it acknowledged that its own lack of organisation and miscommunication had resulted in the additional pressures on its staff, while simultaneously noting that the resident should not have had to deal with this in in any way. It acknowledged that it had failed to show respect to the resident in his new home, apologised, provided feedback to staff, noted that it was providing changes to these processes for the future.
Additionally, the complaint response of 14 January 2021 also acknowledged the complaints about the conduct of the landlord’s contractors at a later date. This response however provided a reasonable answer to each of the issues that were raised by the resident. It acknowledged the various concerns the resident had raised including that contractors had smoked within the boundaries of the property, and that he was worried about the level of Covid-secure measures that had been implemented. It noted that on the basis of its investigation which involved speaking to each of the relevant parties and their management, its contractors had largely acted in line with their policies and in a reasonable fashion. Nevertheless passed on feedback to them about the resident’s request that they not smoke on the property, and that they not make comments about the resident’s family, even though it was not entirely clear whether there was evidence for this. Additionally it carried out a review of its Covid-secure measures and justified these on the basis of these being in line with government guidance at the time. This was appropriate.
The landlord’s offer of £250 was a reasonable one to make considering the distress that was caused to the resident and his family by the behaviour of the contractors. It demonstrated a recognition of the impact the behaviour had had on the resident and an acknowledgement that parts of the behaviour, though the reasons for these had been explained, remained unacceptable. The landlord’s reviewing of its policies, providing of feedback to its contractors and apology to the resident, considered in line with the compensation offered demonstrated a valid attempt to resolve the matter and prevent the same thing happening again

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure by the landlord regarding the complaint about its handling of repairs at the resident’s property.
In accordance with paragraph 55(b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord has offered reasonable redress regarding the complaint about the alleged damage by contractors to the resident’s personal property.
In accordance with paragraph 55(b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord has offered reasonable redress regarding the complaint about the conduct of its contractors.

Reasons

There were demonstrable failings in the landlord’s response to the resident’s reported repair issues. The landlord has acknowledged and apologised for some of these, and it is also not at fault for some elements of the delays that were caused by the Covid-19 government mandated lockdowns. Nevertheless, a number of repairs were outstanding for a number of months or more, and therefore the landlord should have offered financial compensation to the resident in line with its acknowledgement of the failings.
The landlord carried out a reasonable investigation of the resident’s reports that its contractors had caused damaged to his personal belongings. It reviewed the CCTV footage provided by the resident and additionally carried out interviews with each of the relevant contractors. While it took the position that the evidence was inconclusive, it acted fairly in an attempt to bring the matter to a resolution by offering compensation to the resident.
The landlord has recognised that there were failings in the behaviour of its contractors on particular occasions, while also justifying the actions they took in other instances. It has apologised for the failings, undertaken reviews of its policies, provided feedback to the contractors and offered compensation to the resident for the distress caused. Additionally, it has explained how the conduct was acceptable in other instances complained about, while nevertheless acknowledging that the resident experienced distress and reassuring him of its commitment to avoiding this in future.

Orders

The landlord, within the next four weeks, to pay to the resident the sum of £150 for the distress and inconvenience caused by its failings in its repair handling process.

Recommendations

I make the following recommendation:
1. That the landlord, within the next four weeks, pay to the resident its previous offer of £500 compensation for the failures in the conduct of its contractors. The finding of reasonable redress is conditional on this recommendation being carried out. If this payment has previously been made to the resident, the recommendation will be considered to have been carried out.