Newcastle City Council (202227568)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202227568

Newcastle City Council

25 November 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

The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of;
1. repairs to the resident’s property,
2. the resident’s complaint.

Background

The resident was an assured tenant within a block of flats. The property was a 3-bedroom maisonette. The tenancy began in 2004. The resident lived at the property with her 3 children. The landlord had recorded vulnerabilities for her. The resident said that the problems with her housing had an impact on her mental wellbeing.
On 8 January 2023, the resident raised a repair to the landlord for her living room radiator. She told the landlord it had come off the wall and it was leaking. The resident raised further repairs on 12 January 2023. The landlord’s repairs log noted an inspection was needed for the plastering on the property’s internal walls and the resident had issues with damp due to an extractor fan not working.
The resident complained to the landlord on 31 January 2023. She said her radiator was still not fixed to the wall despite 4 visits from the landlord to repair it. The landlord noted she was “frustrated” with the repairs at her property.
On 6 March 2023, the landlord replied to the resident at stage 1 of its internal complaints process. It listed the repairs raised by the resident and how it planned to tackle them. It upheld her complaint, but did not offer compensation. The landlord arranged for the resident to have a single point of contact.
The resident escalated her complaint on 9 March 2023. She said she did not think the issues in her complaint had been resolved.
On the 18 May 2023, the landlord replied to the resident at stage 2 of its internal complaints process. It said as there were so many outstanding issues to resolve, it offered her a move to another available property.
The resident moved into the new property in August 2023. She told this Service she believes the disrepair of her first property was caused by poor workmanship by the landlord and she would like this to be recognised.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

The resident has informed this Service how the issues have impacted on her health. It is recognised the situation was distressing for the resident. The evidence shows it had been ongoing for a considerable period of time. Where the Ombudsman finds failure on a landlord’s part, we can consider the resulting distress and inconvenience. Unlike a court, we cannot establish liability or award damages. This means we are unable to determine if the landlord was responsible for any health impacts.

The landlord’s handling of the repairs to the resident’s property

On 8 January 2023, the resident raised a repair. She said there was a leak from the living room radiator and it had come off the wall. The repairs log shows the landlord attended on the same day to stop the leak. It also shows the landlord was repeatedly unable to complete the repair as a further 4 visits were logged that month. The resident has told this Service the landlord was unable to complete the repair at the appointments due to time constraints and lack of the correct equipment.
In addition, on 12 January 2023, the resident raised repairs for the internal walls at her property. The landlord’s repairs log also notes the resident reported issues with damp due to an extractor fan not working. The landlord’s repairs log shows an appointment was booked for 19 working days later. At this subsequent appointment, follow up works were raised.
The landlord’s repairs policy says it is responsible for internal repairs including “electrical, plumbing and gas faults”, “plaster works” and “bathroom and kitchen fitting repairs”. The landlord’s repairs policy states urgent repairs, which includes plumbing faults and gas leaks, will be completed within 1, 3 or 7 working days. It also says routine repairs, including plasterwork, will be completed in 15 working days.
The landlord’s damp and mould policy states it will investigate and carry out a survey to diagnose the cause of the problem when any incident of damp and mould is reported by a resident. It also states it will assess the structure of the property, check the level of humidity and check all installed equipment is working and effective. The timeframes for damp and mould repairs are not specified by the landlord.
The evidence shows that the landlord did not adhere to the timescales as set out in its repairs policy. An appointment was arranged 19 working days after the resident reported issues with her internal walls. This was around 4 working days over the timeframe set out in the policy. The evidence provided shows that the work was not completed at the appointment and that follow on jobs were raised by the landlord.
During a telephone call with the landlord on 31 January 2023, the resident raised her complaint. She said she was unhappy that her living room radiator had still not been reattached to the wall. The resident also said there was water damage to her carpet, following the leak from the living room radiator.
The landlord visited the resident on 2 March 2023 at her property to discuss the complaint. It replied at stage 1 of its internal complaints process on 6 March 2023. It upheld the resident’s complaint, but no offer of compensation was made.
In the landlord’s stage 1 response it said the resident had raised the standard of the following repairs as part of her complaint:
1. A new bathtub was fitted but tiles and plastering had not been completed.
2. An extractor fan was not working which has caused condensation and mould.
3. There was a boiler leak.
4. The living room radiator was crooked and needed to be straightened.
5. Leaks were coming from an unknown source.
In addition, the resident complained about poor record keeping of repair jobs and had concerns of poor workmanship, staff conduct and the landlord’s complaint handling.
In the stage 1 response the landlord agreed it would do the following:
1. Inspect the pipework in the living room, inspect the floorboards, plaster the walls and follow on works from removing the fire.
2. Inspect the plastering in the bathroom. Also service the extraction fan and repair the light. Toilet flush to also be repaired and all walls to be painted.
3. Inspection of the boiler.
4. Plaster all walls in the kitchen, replace floor tiles and skirting boards. Inspection for new kitchen door and a cooker hood to be fitted.
The landlord also said it would arrange for “numerous trades to attend at the same time to minimise the visits” required at the property. This was an appropriate response by the landlord and showed that it had taken into consideration the effect of multiple repair appointments would have on the resident.
In the resident’s complaint to the landlord, she said the radiator repair was not completed. In the landlord’s stage 1 response it stated the radiator was ‘crooked and needs straightening’. It is not clear from the evidence when the radiator was reattached to the living room wall, but the repairs log shows multiple visits took place before it was completed. It appears to have taken longer than the 7 working days set out in the landlord’s repairs policy. It also appears to have not been repaired satisfactorily first time. The landlord did not acknowledge any delay or failure to get it right first time in its stage 1 response.
The stage 1 response also failed to identify the delay in arranging an appointment for the required repairs to the internal walls at the property. Furthermore, the landlord noted the resident raised a repair for damp and mould in its stage 1 response. However, the list of actions it proposed to take in response to the complaint did not include any mention of the reported damp and mould. The landlord has not provided evidence to this Service to show that it followed its policy on damp and mould repairs.
There is no evidence that the landlord provided or made appointments with the resident, or produced a schedule of works to undertake the required repairs listed in the stage 1 response.
In summary, the landlord failed to acknowledge the delays in repairs to the living room radiator and the internal walls. It also failed to respond in line with its policy to reports of damp and mould. This was inappropriate.
On 9 March 2023, the resident escalated her complaint as she thought it had not been resolved at stage 1. The resident said:
1. The landlord’s stage 1 response had failed to address previous poor-quality workmanship and there was “no firm agreement about any proposed works”.
2. The living room radiator had been inspected multiple times and her carpet was damaged due to an undetected leak.
3. She was very anxious regarding the landlord’s responses.
The repairs log shows that on the 15 March 2023 the landlord raised 2 jobs for the resident’s property. The repairs were for the “gas appliance” and “pipework” to locate the leak at the property and fix “the issue causing pressure drop on boiler”. This was 10 working day since the landlord had visited the resident and recorded the requirements for these repairs. The landlord has not provided evidence to account for this delay in raising the repairs. As such, this was an avoidable delay which caused inconvenience to the resident.
On 18 May 2023, the landlord responded to the resident at stage 2 of its internal complaints process. It thanked the resident for allowing another home visit to her property to discuss the complaint.
The landlord said it was “really disappointed to hear about the journey” the resident had encountered to date. It said the “radiator issue in isolation was handled really poorly” and that was “compounded by the sheer number of ongoing concerns/outstanding repairs”.
The landlord upheld the resident’s complaint but, again, no offer of compensation was made. It did, however, confirm it would offer the resident a new property to move to, the following month. The landlord said the offer to move was due to the scale of the repairs required at her current property and it would not be feasible to complete the required works while the resident and her family lived there. The landlord’s offer was for the resident to be moved permanently to an already identified property, via a “managed move”. A managed move is a transfer of a resident between a landlord’s properties. It is a type of transfer that allows a landlord flexibility to decide how best to use its available stock.
The resident told this Service that she did not want to move out of the property as she had lived in it for 19 years. However, there is no evidence provided to show the resident raised these concerns to the landlord at this stage.
The landlord’s decants policy says it can offer a temporary decant “if there is no suitable means” of getting repairs completed whilst the resident remains in the property. For a permanent decant it says the resident would need to submit an application to the local banding system in order to bid on a new property. The landlord does not have a managed move policy. The evidence provided by the landlord shows the permanent decant policy was bypassed based on its decision to offer the resident a new home directly. There was no evidence to show the resident was not in agreement to a move. Therefore the landlord’s actions were fair in the circumstances as a means to provide part of the resolution to the issues she had complained about.
In its complaint responses at stage 1 and 2 the landlord failed to acknowledge the resident’s reports of the physical and mental impact the situation had caused to her. This was unempathetic, unfair and caused the resident further distress.
When a failure is identified, as in this case, the Ombudsman’s role is to consider whether the redress offered by the landlord put things right and resolved the resident’s complaint satisfactorily in the circumstances. In considering this, the Ombudsman takes into account whether the landlord’s offer of redress was in line with the Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles: Be Fair, Put Things Right and Learn from Outcomes as well as our own guidance on remedies.
The landlord attempted to put things right at stage 1 of its complaints process by organising repairs. At stage 2 of the complaints process, as a means to resolve the resident’s complaint it offered a permanent managed move to another property. The resident accepted.
The landlord offered a general apology for the resident’s “journey” and its poor handling of the radiator repair as part of its response. However, it failed to offer compensation in recognition of the distress and inconvenience caused. This was through its failures to follow its own policies throughout the repair and complaint timeline. There was also a lack of empathy and understanding in the landlord’s responses, which aggravated the distress caused by the landlord’s handling of the issue. These failings combined amount to maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the repairs at the property.

The landlord’s complaint handling

Between December 2022 and January 2023, the resident said she tried to raise a formal complaint to the landlord via telephone. She said she “was led to believe” this had happened. No evidence of the phone call has been provided to this Service. The landlord’s complaint handling policy says, “a complaint is an expression of dissatisfaction, however made”. As there is no independent evidence of the resident raising the complaint at that time, this Service is unable to draw a conclusion as to whether the landlord acted appropriately or not in these circumstances
On 31 January 2023, the landlord recorded the resident’s complaint at stage 1. The landlord’s complaints policy says it will respond to a complaint at stage 1 within 10 working days. The resident contacted this Service on 14 February 2023 as she had not received a reply from the landlord. A reminder email was sent to the landlord by the Ombudsman to ask that a reply be sent to the resident no later than 6 March 2023. The landlord sent its stage 1 response to the resident on that date. This was a delay of around 14 working days above the timeframe in the policy.
In its stage 1 response the landlord failed to acknowledge and apologise for this delay in dealing with the resident’s complaint. This was inappropriate of the landlord, and it caused distress and inconvenience to the resident.
The landlord’s response at stage 1 shows part of the resident’s complaint was around staff conduct and its complaint handling. The landlord failed to explain whether or not it would investigate these issues as part of its response. The Housing Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (March 2022) paragraph 5.6 states that a landlord’s complaint response must address all issues raised in the complaint by a resident. The landlord’s failure to acknowledge this aspect of the resident’s complaint was inappropriate.
The resident escalated her complaint on 9 March 2023. The landlord responded at stage 2 of its internal complaints process on 18 May 2023. This was around 47 working days later. The landlord’s complaints policy says complaints at stage 2 will be responded to within 20 days. This was therefore a delay of around 27 working days.
The landlord’s reply at stage 2 again failed to recognise the delay in responding to the resident’s complaint. The delay and the failure to recognise the delay in responding was inappropriate of the landlord.
In summary, the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint was delayed at both stage 1 and 2. The landlord failed to acknowledge key complaint points regarding staff conduct and poor complaint handling. It did not recognise at both stages it had delayed responding to the complaint. This was inappropriate and will have caused distress and inconvenience to the resident. These failures amount to maladministration. An order of compensation will therefore be made below.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of repairs to the resident’s property.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in its complaint handling.

Orders & Recommendations

Orders

Within 4 weeks of the date of this report the landlord is ordered to do the following:
1. The landlord to apologise in writing to the resident for the failings outlined above.
2. Pay the resident £550 in compensation, broken down as follows:
  1. £400 for the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident by its handling of repairs to her property.
  2. £150 for the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident by the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.
3. Establish if the resident still wishes her concerns around staff conduct to be treated by the landlord as a complaint. The landlord should respond to the resident appropriately based on her decision and inform this Service on what course of action it will take as a result.

Recommendations

The landlord should consider the implementation of a policy around management moves. In addition, when appropriate, its processes should have a provision for recording a resident’s approval to be moved under such circumstances.
The landlord should provide evidence of compliance with the orders set out above and its response to the recommendations to this Service within 4 weeks.