Newham Council (202017244)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202017244

Newham Council

21 April 2022

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. the resident’s report of a roof leak
2. the resident’s request for the front entrance door and glass panel to be repaired
3. the related complaint.

Background

The resident has been a secure tenant of the landlord since 27 March 2017.
The property is described as a new build three-bedroom, mid-terraced house. The landlord has indicated that the property was covered by a 10-year home warranty provided by the National House Building Council (NHBC).
The resident occupies the property with his wife and four children. The resident’s daughter has represented him during the complaint process and any correspondence from her will be stated within this report as being from “the resident”.
The tenancy agreement obliges the tenant to take responsibility ‘ for the behaviour and actions of any person ( including children) living in your household or visiting you. You are responsible for behaviour taking place in your home’.
The tenancy agreement required the landlord to maintain the structure of the building and to carry out repairs that it is responsible for within a reasonable period of time.
The landlord’s web site provides information on the repairs carried out for its residents. It advises that residents must report emergency repairs by phone and it will respond within four hours to make the property safe and non-emergency repairs are reported through its website. It advises that once it receives the repair request, it will advise whether the repair is chargeable.
The landlord’s corporate complaint policy provides guidance on the management of complaints to resolve issues that have gone wrong. The landlord operates a two-stage complaint procedure. The first stage allows for early resolution with complaints resolved within 20 working days. It sets out that if the same failure is repeated, the issue is escalated to the second stage of the complaint procedure. Complaint escalated to the second stage of the complaint procedure are resolved within 15 working days.
The landlord’s complaint, compensation and policy guidance set out that compensation should be considered where there has been clear service failure and sets out suggested amounts for compensation and good will payments, recognising the impact on its residents.

Summary of events

The landlord’s records note that on 3 October 2019, the resident notified the landlord that a repair was required to his roof. A further report was received from the resident on 18 November 2019 that there was water ingress from the roof into the living room. In response, the landlord arranged for the roofers to attend on 17 December 2019 who informed the landlord that as the property was a new build, the repairs to the roof would be covered under the warranty for the property.
From the available information, there was no further contact from the resident regarding the water ingress during 2020.
The resident contacted the landlord on 17 December 2020 requesting that it secure the front entrance door to his property following a raid by the police. In response, the landlord attended to make the door safe on the same day.
It is noted in the landlord’s records that the front entrance door and its side glass panel was damaged during the forced entry by the police in the execution of a warrant. The police provided the landlord with the crime reference number.
The resident completed the landlord’s online complaint form on 22 January 2021 about the repairs and maintenance service as it had not responded to three outstanding repairs, that he had experienced a lack of communication and found the service inefficient. The resident did not specify any further information about his concerns when making the complaint.
The landlord responded to the resident’s complaint at stage one of the complaint’s procedure on 3 February 2021 advising that it would arrange for the replacement of the front entrance door and side glass panel and that the issue with the water ingress would be referred back to the builder as it fell with the warranty for the property.
The same day (3 February 2021), the landlord informed the resident that it would be attending to measure the front entrance door and the side glass panel and that it intended to replace the front entrance door on 4 February 2021. In response, the resident emailed the landlord on the same day (3 February 2021) requesting information about the charge for replacing the front entrance door and whether the new front entrance door would be similar to the existing door.
On 5 February 2021, the landlord inspected the front entrance door and assessed that a new combination door and frame was required. The landlord’s internal records show that following the inspection, it considered that the resident was liable for the repair to the front entrance door as the damage was caused by the forced entry by the police. In addition, it was suggested that the quote for the repair to the front entrance door and side glass panel be sent to the resident and that he should be informed that he could obtain his own quote to replace the front entrance door and side glass panel.
The resident remained dissatisfied and escalated his complaint on 1 March 2021 as he felt his concerns about the delay in the landlord repairing the front entrance door and the side glass panel had not been addressed. He advised that an appointment had been agreed for 25 February 2021 to measure for the replacement door and side glass panel and no one had attended. In addition, since 2019, there had been water penetration into the living room from the roof. He had been advised that the landlord would be contacting the builders. He advised that the water ingress had caused staining to the living room ceiling and the living room wall. He was particularly concerned as the wall contained sockets which could be a potential hazard for himself and his family.
The landlord considered the complaint at the final stage of the complaint procedure and issued its complaint response on 24 March 2021. It concluded that:
1. it had carried out repairs to make the front entrance door safe and that the resident was liable for the cost of replacing the door as the damage was caused by the police forcing entry to the resident’s home
2. if the resident agreed to pay the cost of replacing the front entrance door and side glass panel, he should make contact and it would arrange for the work to be carried out
3. the builders were required to return to rectify the water penetration; it had contacted the builders, but it acknowledged that it had not taken any action to follow this up.
The landlord sent the resident a quote on 26 April 2021 for the cost of replacing the front entrance door and side glass panel for £4,070.46 advising that as the police caused the damage to the front entrance door on 17 December 2020, he was therefore liable for the cost. It stated that if the resident agreed to pay the cost, it would arrange for the door to be replaced.
Between 10 and 14 May 2021, the landlord and the resident exchanged emails about the charge for the replacement door and side glass panel. The landlord informed the resident that he was liable for the charge. In response, the resident requested the reason for the landlord’s decision, informed the landlord of his financial situation namely that he was reliant on benefits and asked whether there was a possibility of making payments by instalments. The landlord did not respond to the resident’s email.
The resident approached this Service to escalate his complaint as he remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s response to his complaint. The resident requested two outcomes: for a resolution to the water ingress from the roof and the front entrance door and the side glass panel to be repaired without charge.
The landlord informed this Service on 21 July 2021 that the roof covering was replaced by the landlord on 15 July 2021 and that it had agreed to replace the front door and side glass panel free of charge. It has also made the following proposal to resolve the complaint. It would:
1. send a written apology to the resident from the Director or Assistant Director of Housing confirming how his concerns will be addressed
2. pay £750.00 compensation for the delay in resolving the repair issues to the front door and roof
3. pay £500.00 compensation for the distress, time and trouble caused to the resident and his family.
4. pay £350.00 compensation for failing to deal with the substantive issues of the complaint
5. arrange for the internal decoration to rectify the damage caused by the water ingress.

Assessment and findings

residents report of a roof leak

The resident reported water ingress into the living room around 18 months after moving into the property. At the time of the report of water ingress to the landlord from the roof, the property had been built at least two years earlier. It is accepted that there may be issues in a new build property that may not become immediately apparent until after the resident moved in. Therefore, the landlord’s position that the responsibility for the repair lay with the original builder as any latent defect would fall within the warranty period for a new home was reasonable.
The landlord has accepted that it did not act appropriately regarding the roof leak as the resident made two reports regarding the water ingress before it acted and that once it had visited to ascertain that there was a fault with the roof in December 2019 and that the repair was the responsibility of the builder, it did not take any action to follow up with the builder regarding the defect with the roof. This was a service failure as the resident had to live for around 18 months with the water ingress into his living room – which was unacceptable. In addition, it failed to communicate effectively with the resident or keep him updated regarding the water ingress. This was not appropriate as the resident remained uncertain and lacked clarity on who was responsible for resolving the roof leak and when this would take place.
It is evident that on receipt of the resident’s reports regarding the water ingress in October 2019 and November 2019 into the living room that the landlord failed to take appropriate action, undertake any monitoring of the water ingress or attempt to progress the repair to the roof with the builder or the NHBC to establish which party was responsible for the repair. This was not reasonable as its approach indicated that it did not take the resident’s concerns seriously even though the delay caused inconvenience to the resident.
On review of the complaint once it had escalated to this Service, the landlord has taken action by replacing the roof covering on 15 July 2021 and has agreed to rectify damage to the redecorations to the living room. This is appropriate as the resident had already experienced an unacceptable delay in getting the roof leak resolved and the offer of a good will gesture to repair the damaged decorations, shows that the landlord is being solution focused.

the request for the front entrance door and associated glass panel to be repaired

The landlord informed this Service on 21 July 2021, that when it informed the resident that he was liable for the repair of the front entrance door and side glass panel, that decision was incorrect. The landlord has a responsibility to keep the structure and exterior of the property in repair. The tenancy agreement allows it to consider recharging the resident if the resident, his household members or visitors had caused damage to its property. There is limited information regarding the decision by the police to force entry to the resident’s home in the execution of the warrant. There is no evidence that the landlord took any steps once it received the crime reference number to establish which member of the household the warrant related to or to obtain further information to establish whether action was required under the tenancy agreement.
Furthermore, the landlord has acknowledged in its communication to this Service that it did not respond to the resident’s requests for information regarding the charge for the front entrance door and any possible instalment plan. This was not reasonable as it increased the length of time that the door was insecure as the landlord had only taken steps to make the door safe in December 2020.
The landlord has reconsidered its position and has agreed to replace the front door and the side glass panel on 15 July 2021 without charge and it has informed this Service that on 21 July 2021 that the front entrance door had been measured and ordered.

the related complaint

The resident complained to the landlord on 1 March 2021 regarding its missed appointment to repair the door and the outstanding repair to the roof. The landlord appropriately dealt with the complaint at the final stage of the complaint procedure, in accordance with its complaint procedure recognising this was the second complaint it had received about the same matter in a short period of time and the issues raised had not been addressed.
The landlord has accepted that its complaint responses to the resident’s complaints did not meet its complaint handling standards. The complaint responses were limited as they did not provide a comprehensive response regarding the outstanding repairs and did not show that the landlord understood the resident’s concerns as it had not acted regarding the substantive matters of complaint. In so far as the resident had been waiting for over 18 months for the repair to take place and it did not advise whether it had made contact with the builder or provide any indication when an update would be given. In addition, the complaint response did not explain the landlord’s reasons for pursuing a recharge.
Given the length of time that the resident was experiencing the water penetration and living with an insecure door, the complaint responses did not offer any explanation, offer any reassurance or demonstrate that it had investigated the issues that the resident had reported considering the security implications of living with a door that had not been made safe.
The landlord also accepted that it had missed an opportunity to resolve the complaint within its own complaint procedures and that earlier intervention would have reduced the inconvenience and delay experienced by the resident.
The landlord has assessed its failures in accordance with its compensation policy and proposed the following remedies:
1. the Director or Assistant Director of Housing to apologise in writing to the resident and his family
2. pay £750 compensation for the delay in resolving the repair to the front entrance door and to the roof
3. pay £500 compensation for the distress, time and trouble caused to him and his family
4. pay £350 compensation for its complaint handling failures
5. arrange for the internal decoration to rectify the damage caused by the water ingress
Where there are admitted failings by the landlord the Ombudsman’s role is to consider whether the redress offered by the landlord is in line with the Dispute Resolution Principles: be fair, put things right and learn from outcomes.
In this particular case, having considered the available evidence, the landlord’s remedy to the complaint and the compensation offered by the landlord is reasonable and proportionate as the overall award reflects the delay in the work being carried out to the roof, that the resident was provided with incorrect information regarding the responsibility for the replacement door and for its complaint handling failures. The landlord has taken appropriate action to put things right in replacing the roof covering, offered to decorate the damaged areas in the living room and it has taken steps to replace the front entrance door and side glass panel without charge. Its actions are therefore considered appropriate redress to resolve the complaint and in accordance with the Ombudsman Dispute Resolution Principles.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 55 (b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord has offered reasonable redress to the maladministration identified in its handling of the resident’s report of a roof leak
In accordance with paragraph 55 (b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord has offered reasonable redress to the maladministration identified in its handling of the resident’s request for the front entrance door and window to be repaired.
In accordance with paragraph 55 (b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord has offered reasonable redress for the related complaint.

Reasons

The landlord has acknowledged that it did not take appropriate action to ensure that the work to the roof was carried out within its published repair timescales. The landlord’s remedy is considered appropriate to address the service failure.
The landlord has acknowledged that it did not provide the incorrect information to the resident regarding the replacement door and side glass panel. The landlord’s proposed remedy is considered appropriate considering the circumstances.
The landlord did not properly investigate the residents concerns when it considered the resident’s complaints through the complaint’s process. It has acknowledged its failure and offered an appropriate remedy

Recommendations

If it has not already done so, the landlord to pay the resident compensation of £1600 that it proposed in its response to this Service on 21 July 2021.
If it has not already done so, the landlord to complete the decoration works to the resident’s living room and arrange a convenient time to install the front entrance door and associated glass panel.
The landlord should confirm compliance with these orders to this Service within six weeks of the date of this report as the findings in this report are dependent on the landlord carrying out these recommendations.