Newham Council (202008669)

A picture containing logo

Description automatically generated

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202008669

Newham Council

25 November 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 repairs service provided by the landlord.
2. The landlord’s response to concerns regarding staff conduct.
3. The landlord’s complaint handling.

Background and summary of events

Background

The resident is the tenant of the property (the property) which the complaint concerns. The landlord, a local authority, owns the property.
The property is a flat.

Summary of events – complaint A

In November 2020 the resident contacted this Service setting out that the landlord had failed to respond to his complaint about its repairs service and staff conduct. In summary the resident stated:
1. The landlord had taken a protracted length of time to address draughty windows and a leak causing damp and mould.
2. The landlord had not offered compensation for the poor repairs service it had provided.
3. The landlord’s officers had been unhelpful and rude in responding to his concerns about its repairs service. The resident confirmed that this included the mayor, a councillor and the chief executive.
On receipt of the resident’s referral the Ombudsman made enquiries with the landlord. The Ombudsman asked the landlord to respond to the resident’s complaint under its complaint procedure if it had not already done so.
Despite the Ombudsman requesting that the landlord respond to the resident’s concerns under its complaint procedure on multiple occasions between November 2020 and December 2020 the landlord did not do so. On 14 January 2021 the Ombudsman therefore issued the landlord with a Complaint Handling Failure Order requiring it to respond to the complaint by 21 January 2021.
On 21 January 2021 the landlord responded to the resident’s complaint at stage two of its complaint procedure. The landlord opened up its response by confirming that it understood that the resident’s complaint was about:
1. The length of time it took to repair draughty windows.
2. The length of time it took to repair a leak and remedy damp issues in the bathroom.
3. Its response to the resident’s request for compensation.
4. The conduct of its officers.
5. Its complaint handling.
In response to the complaint the landlord said:
1. In respect of draughty windows:
  1. Its records showed that the resident began reporting problems with the property’s windows in April 2016.
  2. Its records showed that between April 2016 and December 2018 it had attended the property on multiple occasions to undertake repairs to address the windows.
  3. Its repairs team had confirmed that the repair issues to the windows had been rectified.
2. In respect of a leak causing damp issues in the bathroom the landlord noted:
  1. Its records showed that the resident began reporting damp issues due to a leak in June 2016.
  1. Its records showed that between June 2016 and December 2019 it had attended the property on multiple occasions to undertake repairs to address the leak and damp.
  2. All works associated to the leak and damp were post inspected in December 2019 and no defects were identified.
3. While the repair issues had been rectified, the time taken to do so had been protracted and it had delayed in “getting to the root cause of the repair issues”. The landlord confirmed that it would therefore like to offer the resident £250 compensation for this failure. The landlord noted that it had previously awarded compensation for missed appointments in relation to the repairs service it provided in respect of the draughty windows and leak causing damp and mould, and it had refused compensation for loss of earnings.
4. Its records showed that the resident had made two formal complaints (13 October 2019 and 30 June 2020) and one member enquiry (7 July 2020) in respect of the repairs. The landlord noted that within the complaints and member enquiry the resident had also raised concerns regarding staff conduct. The landlord confirmed that while it had responded to the resident’s complaints about its repairs service informally it had not provided a formal response under its complaint procedure. The landlord noted that is informal responses had not however addressed staff conduct. The landlord confirmed that it would like to offer the resident £250 compensation to recognise its poor handling of the resident’s complaint.
5. Investigations into staff conduct were investigated under its Employee Code of Conduct. The landlord confirmed that “any issue relating to staff conduct [would] be investigated and any appropriate disciplinary action taken”, however due to confidentiality it would be unable to share the outcome of the investigation, or whether an investigation had taken place at all.
The landlord concluded by apologising for the service failures identified and confirming that the resident may refer his complaint to this Service if he was not happy with its response.
On 29 January 2021 the resident replied to the landlord’s complaint response. The resident stated that the landlord’s offer of compensation was not proportionate to the circumstances of the complaint, including as loss of earnings had been refused. The resident added that the landlord had not fully addressed his concerns regarding staff conduct, specifically in relation to the mayor.
On 11 March 2021 the landlord wrote to the resident, following correspondence and a phone call with him, to confirm that he had accepted its revised offer of compensation, £1000, to resolve the complaint. The landlord did not break down its revised offer of compensation.

Summary of events – complaint B

On 31 December 2020 the resident made a complaint to the landlord about its Senior Technical Officer (STO). In summary the resident said:
1. In January 2020 the landlord installed a new central heating system. The resident stated that during the works to install the system the property was damaged and no boxing was installed around the pipework.
2. He reported his concerns to the STO in March 2020 who advised that they would “assist”, however there would be a delay due to the Covid-19 pandemic.
3. Despite contacting the STO in September 2020 and October 2020 regarding the make good works, once Covid-19 restrictions had been lifted, they did not respond. The resident stated that this was unsatisfactory.
On 29 January 2021 the landlord responded to the complaint. The landlord confirmed that its STO had recently contacted the resident to arrange an appointment in respect of the outstanding make good repairs following works to the central heating system. Within its response the landlord apologised for the delay the resident had experienced in arranging the make good repairs. The landlord confirmed that if the resident did “not accept [its] conclusion”, he may request a review of its decision.
On the same day the resident requested to escalate his complaint. In summary the resident said:
1. He did not feel that his complaint had been thoroughly investigated.
2. He had attempted to progress the make good works with the STO since March 2020, however this had been unsuccessful. The resident stated that the STO had chosen not to engage with him. The resident stated that he would like an explanation detailing why the STO had ignored him.
3. Following his complaint, he had received notifications that appointments had been made for the make good works, however the appointments were made without his knowledge or consent.
In March 2021 the resident contacted this Service about his complaint as he had not received a response to his correspondence dated 29 January 2021. The resident stated that the landlord had not provided an adequate response to the concerns which he had raised, and therefore to request assistance.
On 20 April 2021, following intervention from this Service, the landlord responded to the resident’s complaint. The landlord did not state if its response was given under its complaint procedure. In summary the landlord said:
1. From its investigation it had identified that there were “some time gaps in correspondence with [the STO]” which was not acceptable. The landlord apologised.
2. Investigations into conduct of staff members were handled as a separate investigation under its Council’s Employee Code of Conduct. The landlord confirmed that it would not be able to share with the resident the outcome of any such investigation due to confidentiality, it could confirm that any issue relating to staff conduct would be investigated and any appropriate disciplinary action taken.
The landlord concluded by confirming that it would ensure that “any repairs were carried out in a timely manner”.
On 21 April 2021 the resident requested to escalate his complaint. In summary the resident said:
1. He was unhappy with how the STO had handled the make good works.
2. The time that the make good works were outstanding had caused him distress and inconvenience.
3. It was unsatisfactory that he had to contact the Ombudsman to generate a response to his complaint.
4. He would like £390.28 compensation to resolve the matter.
Within his correspondence the resident stated that the landlord was a “racist” organisation.
On or around 26 May 2021, exact date not known, the landlord provided its final response. In summary the landlord said:
1. It understood that the resident’s outstanding concerns were:
  1. Lack of explanation regarding the STO’s conduct in relation to the make good works.
  2. Lack of response to his communication dated 29 January 2021.
  3. Compensation.
2. Investigations about staff conduct were separate from its complaint procedure and investigated under its Employee Code of Conduct. The landlord reiterated that it was unable to share the outcome of any such investigation due to confidentiality, however any issue relating to staff conduct would be investigated and any appropriate disciplinary action taken.
3. It had responded to complaint A on 21 January 2021. The landlord confirmed that it had subsequently awarded £1000 compensation to reflect:
  1. Unreasonable time taken to address all repair issues.
  1. Distress and inconvenience experienced as a result of failures in complaint handling.
4. It considered that its offer of compensation, awarded under complaint A, reflected the poor service the resident had received, including in respect of the STO.
The landlord concluded by confirming that the resident may refer his complaint to this Service if he was not happy with its response.

Assessment and findings

The repairs service provided by the landlord – complaint A

In responding to complaint A, on 21 January 2021, the landlord acknowledged that its handling of repairs to address draughty windows and a leak causing damp and mould were not managed appropriately as the repairs were outstanding for a protracted period of time. The landlord has provided extracts from its repair log to demonstrate that this was the case. Following a review of the repairs log the Ombudsman’s agrees that the repairs were not investigated or addressed in a timely manner, with the resident reporting issues for over 18 months. This would have resulted in inconvenience, distress, time and trouble to the resident.
Where a landlord acknowledges a service failure the Ombudsman will then consider whether it has made an offer of redress to resolve the complaint. In this case the landlord apologised and awarded compensation.
The landlord’s apology was appropriate as it demonstrated that the landlord accepted responsibility for its failings and to acknowledge the impact on the resident.
The landlord’s compensation policy sets out that it may award compensation where “there has been clear service failure”. As the landlord identified from its investigation that there had been a service failure it was appropriate that it engaged its compensation policy – to reflect that the resident was impacted by its actions, that he was exposed to avoidable distress and inconvenience, and for the length of time the issues were ongoing.
As the landlord’s final offer of compensation, £1000, was in consideration of the whole complaint, and the service failures it had identified in relation to both its repairs service and its complaint handling, the Ombudsman will consider whether the offer was reasonable and proportionate to the circumstances later within the report.

The repairs service provided by the landlord – complaint B

The concerns which the resident raised within complaint B was about the STO’s conduct and communication in respect of the make good works following the installation of a new central heating system in the property, rather than its handling of the make good works. The Ombudsman has therefore not considered the landlord’s handling of the make good works specifically, however the Ombudsman has considered the impact of the STO’s conduct on the make good works in the following section.

The landlord’s response to concerns regarding staff conduct – complaint A and complaint B

As part of complaint A the resident raised concerns regarding conduct of the mayor and a councillor.
While the landlord is a local authority, the Ombudsman is only able to look at the landlord in relation to its housing activities so far as they relate to the provision or management of social housing. This does not extend to the actions or conduct of the mayor or the councillor. This may fall within the jurisdiction of the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman.
Within both complaint A and complaint B the resident also raised concerns regarding the conduct of the CEO, the STO and other officers, in relation to the repairs service he had received and their contact with him regarding the repairs. In responding to the resident’s concerns, under both complaint A and B, it was the landlord’s position that staff conduct allegations were investigated under its Employee Code of Conduct and it was unable to share the outcome of any investigation.
The Ombudsman accepts that the landlord has a policy under which it investigates staff conduct, and that it would not be able to share any disciplinary information with the resident due to confidentiality reasons. However, in responding to a complaint regarding staff conduct the Ombudsman considers that it would be appropriate for the landlord to share a reasonable and proportionate level of detail with the resident regarding its investigation and the outcome. For example, the steps the landlord has taken to consider the resident’s allegations which may include staff interviews and review of its internal records. In doing so, the Ombudsman considers that the resident would be provided with an outcome to his complaint and reassurances that it had been taken seriously. In respect of complaint A the landlord did not provide any information or reassurances in response to his concerns regarding staff conduct. This is unsatisfactory as the resident was therefore left without any resolution.
The Ombudsman is however satisfied that the resident was provided with a sufficient outcome to his concerns in respect of the STO, despite the landlord’s position within its final response. The landlord demonstrated within its correspondence dated 20 April 2021 that it had undertaken an investigation of the resident’s concerns by completing a review of its records, which highlighted that there had been a shortfall in service delivery by the STO. It was therefore appropriate that the landlord apologised for its omission to acknowledge this service failure. However alone the apology does not amount to reasonable redress. In the Ombudsman’s opinion the apology alone does not reflect that as a result of the poor conduct (communication) of the STO it resulted in a protracted period of uncertainty and inconvenience to the resident on when the make good works would be undertaken, and therefore the repairs service it provided.
The landlord said within its final response to complaint B dated May 2021, that it considered that its offer of £1000 compensation, previously offered at the end of complaint A, was sufficient to recognise the poor service received by the resident in relation to the STO; in addition to the service failures it had identified in respect of complaint A. In the Ombudsman’s opinion the landlord’s position was unreasonable. This is because there is no indication, within the evidence available for review, that the findings or outcome of complaint B were taken into account by the landlord in calculating the offer. Further the Ombudsman notes that the offer of compensation was made prior to complaint B having exhausted the landlord’s complaint procedure.

The landlord’s complaint handling – complaint A

The landlord acknowledged that its handling of complaint A was unsatisfactory, as it had failed to address the resident’s concerns under its complaint procedure and within its service standards. The landlord has provided evidence that the resident attempted to raise formal complaints about its repairs service and staff conduct in October 2019 and June 2020, however it only provided informal responses at that time.
As the resident had requested formal complaints, it was unsatisfactory and a missed opportunity that the landlord did not engage its complaint policy to undertake an investigation to determine whether there had been any service failures. It was also unsatisfactory that the Ombudsman was required to issue a the landlord with a Complaint Handling Failure order on 14 January 2021 in order to generate a complaint response.
As set out above, where a landlord acknowledges a service failure the Ombudsman will then consider whether it has made an offer of redress to resolve the complaint. In this case the landlord apologised and awarded compensation. For the reasons given in paragraphs 24 and 25 the landlord’s apology and engagement of its compensation policy was appropriate.
In responding to complaint A, and the service failures it had identified in relation to its repairs service and complaint handling the landlord offered a total of £1000. While the resident has suggested, in recent correspondence to this Service, that the compensation is not proportionate to the circumstances of his case, the Ombudsman does not agree. This is because the landlord’s offer of compensation provides that each service failure identified was compensated within its range for cases causing “significant or exceptional” impact, as documented within its compensation policy.

The landlord’s complaint handling – complaint B

Following a review of the chronology of the complaint, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, the landlord’s handling of complaint B was unsatisfactory. The evidence shows that the landlord did not respond to the complaint in a timely manner, specifically as it delayed in providing formal responses under its complaint procedure. In addition, the evidence shows that in order to have his complaint progressed under the landlord’s complaint procedure he was required to request intervention from this Service. This is unsatisfactory as a complaint process exists in order to ensure a resident’s concerns are addressed at the earliest stage to ensure that things are put right as soon as possible, which the landlord did not do in this case.
In responding to the complaint the landlord failed to address all concern raised by the resident, namely his comment that the landlord was a racist organisation. This is unsatisfactory, as it denied the resident a comprehensive response to all the concerns which he had raised.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 55b of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, in the Ombudsman’s opinion the landlord has made a reasonable offer of redress in respect of the repairs service it provided to the resident.
In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was:
1. Service failure by the landlord in respect of its response to concerns regarding staff conduct.
2. Service failure by the landlord in respect of its complaint handling.

Reasons

The repairs service provided by the landlord

While the repairs service provided by the landlord in respect of draughty windows and a leak causing damp and mould was unsatisfactory, the landlord has since identified and acknowledged its service failures, apologised and offered appropriate compensation in recognition of this. The Ombudsman will not make a finding of maladministration where a landlord has offered suitable redress to resolve a complaint.

The landlord’s response to concerns regarding staff conduct

In responding to complaint A it is unsatisfactory that the landlord failed to provide any outcome or conclusion to the resident’s concerns regarding staff conduct. The resident was therefore left without any resolution to his concerns in this regard.
While the landlord demonstrated that that it had investigated the resident’s concerns regarding the conduct of the STO, and apologised for the shortcomings identified, the apology alone does not amount to reasonable redress. This is because it does not reflect that the repairs service it provided to the resident was impacted as a result of the STO’s poor conduct (communication) and resulted in a protracted period of uncertainty on when the make good works would be undertaken.

The landlord’s complaint handling

While the landlord acknowledged that its handling of complaint A was unsatisfactory, and therefore made a reasonable offer of redress, the landlord failed to identify that its handling of complaint B was also unsatisfactory due the timeliness of its responses, its progression through its complaint procedure and its failure to address all issues raised.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

The landlord should pay the resident the following compensation within four weeks of the date of this determination:
1. £100 for not responding to the resident’s concerns regarding staff conduct under complaint A.
2. £100 for the impact of the STO’s conduct on the repairs service provided to the resident in respect of the make good works.
3. £200 in respect of its handling of complaint B.

Recommendations

The landlord should pay the resident the £1000 compensation it awarded in consideration of the complaint, if it has not already done so.
The landlord should share the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code with its officers who respond to complaints to ensure that complaints are responded to in accordance with best practice.
From review of the evidence, it is not clear if the make good works following the installation of the new central heating system have been completed. The landlord should complete any works previously agreed with the resident, and for which it is responsible under the terms of the property’s tenancy agreement.