Norwich City Council (202122852)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202122852

Norwich City Council

8 February 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

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

Background and summary of events

The resident has an assured tenancy with the landlord which started on 30 June 1980. The property is a two bedroom terraced house.
Both the resident and his wife have vulnerabilities. The resident has anxiety and mobility issues. His wife has mental health issues including anxiety, claustrophobia and agoraphobia.
For the purposes of this report both the resident and his wife will be referred to as ‘the resident’.

Policies and procedures

The resident’s tenancy agreement states that the landlord is responsible for keeping in repair the structure and exterior of the home, including drains, gutters and external pipes. It says that from time to time, it will carry out improvements for the long-term benefit of their properties. These may be part of a phased programme of works for the overall benefit of the neighbourhood.
The tenancy agreement says where repairs or improvements are needed, it will discuss what is required with the resident and give no less than 24 hours written notice for appointments, unless it is an emergency.
The tenancy agreement says that residents must allow the landlord and it’s contractors to access their home to;
1. inspect it to check the condition and confirm if any works are needed
2. carry out works of repair, maintenance or improvement to their home
3. carry out works to other people’s homes, or for the benefit of the neighbourhood, which cannot reasonably be carried out otherwise.
The tenancy agreement states the resident is responsible for getting written permission from the landlord before any improvements or alterations are carried out. This applies to standard fittings as well as more major works.
The landlord has a responsive repairs policy which states that residents will be offered appointments for both responsive and planned works, unless attendance is required as an emergency.
The landlord has a two stage complaints process published on their website, and states that the landlord will try to resolve complaints within five working days. Where it is not possible to resolve the complaint within this time frame, then a named officer will take ownership of it and respond fully within 15 working days from receipt of the complaint. If the resident remains dissatisfied after the stage two response, then advice is given on how the resident can refer to this Service.

Summary of events

On 24 November 2020, the resident called the landlord to advise that she had a disagreement with her neighbour about the shared guttering and downpipes. Her neighbour is a private owner, and had approached the resident directly about problems he was having with the guttering on the property, which were causing issues to his property. The resident reported that during this conversation, her neighbour had threatened to take the guttering down himself. She had reported this to the police.
The resident advised that she had paid for fascia boards and guttering to be replaced at the property in 2017, and was concerned that her neighbour would try to take them down. During the call the landlord’s property services team confirmed that the resident had not sought permission to carry out the additional works to her guttering.
On 15 December 2020 a senior surveyor from the landlord attended the properties concerned. They identified that it was the guttering at the rear of the properties that was causing an issue. The downpipe had been extended from the main roof gutter from the resident’s property, into a hopper on the side of the private resident. This meant that water from the roof of a number of other adjacent properties were cascading onto the private owner’s extension.
To remedy this the senior surveyor suggested that the gutters be cleared across all of the landlord’s properties, as there was grass within them which was affecting water flow. They also suggested two possible solutions to improve water flow across the properties:
1. to remove the extended downpipe so that the water did not terminate into the hopper of the private resident, or;
2. to add an additional downpipe, to be extended from the resident’s property and across the extension of the private resident.
On 21 December 2020 the senior surveyor contacted the resident about the proposed remedial works and advised that in order for the works to be completed, the landlord would require access to the property, and scaffolding to be erected. The landlord’s record of this conversation noted that the resident said she was unhappy that her gutter would be touched at all, and she did not want any scaffolding up. In another phone call to the landlord later that day she advised that if the guttering required an additional downpipe, she wanted this done at a neighbouring property and not her own.
The resident contacted local councillors about the issue and between December 2020 and January 2021, the landlord had received emails from them, querying the requirement to do repair works to the guttering. Landlord records show that it responded to the councillors, to reiterate the findings and solutions put forward by the surveyor as mentioned above, but the date these communications are unclear.
There are no further records of communication on the matter until 29 September 2021, when the resident reported that the landlord’s contractors had arrived unannounced to try and gain access to their back garden to erect scaffolding. The resident said that this left his wife feeling insecure and scared.
On 19 October 2021 the resident made a formal complaint to the landlord. He advised that he objected to the works proposals to the guttering because;
1. he had lived in the property for 41 years and there were no issues with the guttering, past or present
2. he felt that the landlord was acting on the request of his neighbour, a private owner, without cause or evidence of a problem
3. he disputed the surveyor’s reasons for the repair works
4. if proposed works go ahead that they would be causing further damage to the property
5. access to his property constituted trespassing, and if the landlord were to put up scaffolding, it would be a breach of the covenant of an enjoyment of the peace
6. the proposed works were having a negative impact on his and his wife’s mental health.
On 5 November 2021, a housing officer and a housing team leader from the landlord visited the resident and his wife to discuss his complaint and his contact with local councillors. The landlord’s record of the meeting state that the residents declined to meet in their property, that they asked the landlord to meet some streets away, and to talk in whispers in case they were overheard.
The landlords records state that during this meeting, the resident explained that;
1. the senior surveyor did not survey or assess anything and they had never been informed that any works are required to be undertaken
2. they did not feel that repairs to the guttering were required
3. they had arranged their own private works to their guttering in 2017, and had not sought permission as they felt the replacement fascia’s were ‘like for like’
4. their neighbour had bought their property several years ago knowing it’s condition and as they felt nothing had changed, no repairs were required
5. they will not allow the landlord access to complete any work to the guttering
6. if the landlord attempts to do any work, then they would contact the police.
During the same meeting the landlord explained that;
1. it had evidence that the current guttering was struggling to cope with sudden downpours that now occur, which were getting more severe due to global warming. The repairs would stop further damage occurring now or in the future
2. it had reviewed the assessment and options the senior surveyor had given them, and had decided to go with the second option of adding an additional downpipe, rather than removing the guttering altogether. It explained that this would be reasonable, particularly as this option was considered to be more of a minor adjustment to minimise disruption to the resident
3. it had an obligation to ensure repairs for which it is responsible for were undertaken, and this included the guttering
4. the resident had an obligation to allow the landlord or its contractors access to complete the works. If they failed to do so, then it could seek to gain access legally through the courts.
On 5, 6, 10 and 16 November 2021 the resident chased the landlord for a response to their complaint by email, webform and handwritten letter. In an email dated 6 November 2021, the resident added that they felt that the visit by the two representatives of the landlord the previous day was threatening, and wanted to add this to their complaint.
On 3 December 2021, the landlord issued its first stage complaint response. It apologised for the delay in responding to the resident’s complaint, and summarised the complaint, taking into account all points the resident had made including;
1. its proposal to repair the guttering
2. that the resident was unhappy with the surveyor, housing team leader and housing officer’s approach and response
3. that the resident had been threatened by their neighbour in November 2020
4. that the scaffolding contractor had attended without an appointment
5. that the resident felt that the works would be unnecessary, intrusive and have an adverse effect on their health.
The landlord advised that on receiving the resident’s complaint, it had instructed staff to suspend any maintenance works until all available information had been reviewed. It advised it was awaiting a copy of the surveyor’s report and would be in contact again once it had sight of it to discuss the findings.
It advised that the purpose of the visit on the 5 November 2021 was to discuss the resident’s concerns in person, with the best intentions of finding a resolution. It apologised that the resident had felt they had reason to complain of attitude of the staff during any visits.
The landlord agreed that if the resident had felt threatened by their neighbour, it was appropriate for them to have contacted the police, as they had done at the time.
Further, it reassured the resident that in order to alleviate concerns, that any future proposals to undertake planned work would be confirmed in writing and notice would be given for any appointments. The landlord reiterated that the resident should not undertake any further work themselves without prior written approval, as the absence of this had in some way contributed to the need to raise the complaint.
On 17 December 2021, the resident responded to the landlord’s stage one response, stating that they “do not expect any work to start whilst the complaint is ongoing, or in fact, anytime in the future”. He confirmed that he did not accept the stage one response as he felt that not all the concerns had been addressed in full. He said that their decision to replace part of the guttering themselves in 2017 was relevant to the complaint as it demonstrated that he and his wife were good tenants.
The resident expressed that he felt their special needs had not been taken into account and this was having a particularly detrimental effect on his wife’s mental health. He advised his wife had been seeking support from her doctor for anxiety and panic attacks, directly related to the landlord’s actions. He had tried to obtain a doctor’s letter that supported this but had been informed by the surgery the landlord would not accept this. A subsequent letter was sent to the landlord from his wife’s classical acupuncturist, advising that her health had been impacted by interactions with her landlord, and asked for the landlord to be sensitive to this when considering what repairs were required.
On 20 and 22 December 2021, the resident chased the landlord for a response to their request for an escalation of the complaint to stage two of the complaint’s procedure. He asked that the landlord make it clear that his reply to the stage one response had been acknowledged, by who and how long it would take for the complaints process to continue. He also requested that no further visits from the landlord take place whilst the complaint remained in progress.
On 21 January 2022, the landlord issued an acknowledgement to the resident that his complaint had been escalated and apologised for the delay. It informed the resident that ‘a full response will be with you shortly’.
The resident approached this Service on 24 January 2022 to advise that a stage two response remained outstanding, and this Service wrote to the landlord the same day, requesting that it respond to the resident within 20 working days.
The landlord issued its stage two response on 3 February 2022. The landlord upheld the following elements of the complaint and offered an apology;
1. for the delay in response to the first complaint
2. for the reported attitudes of various members of staff who had attended the resident’s property, including the housing team leader, housing officer and surveyor
3. for not considering the resident’s special needs in arranging the repair.
The landlord reassured the resident that it would be more sensitive to their needs in its future service delivery. This included instructing that any further proposals for repairs would be undertaken by appointment and confirmed in writing.
It did not uphold the element of the resident’s complaint that the works to the guttering and scaffolding were not required. The reasons for this were;
1. the guttering across all neighbouring properties had been reviewed and the works was deemed necessary to remove excess rainwater and not overload them
2. it had had a legal responsibility to ensure these works were completed
3. the height and nature of the repair would require scaffolding to ensure the safety of both the contractors and the residents themselves.
On 4 February 2022, the resident approached this Service and advised that he remained unhappy with the landlord’s response. He felt that the works to the guttering were not required, and that as an outcome he was requesting that the landlord not pursue any further works, as it was having a negative impact on his and his wife’s mental health. He further advised that unannounced visits had taken place by the landlord’s scaffolding contractors on 14 and 16 February 2022 and he deemed this to be harassment from the landlord.
The landlord has since informed this Service that repairs have taken place to the downpipe via one of the neighbouring properties on 1 March 2022.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s handling of the repairs to the guttering

Under section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985, the landlord is responsible for the keeping in repair the structure and exterior of the property. This includes drains, gutters and external pipes.
After concerns about the guttering had been raised by a neighbouring resident, the landlord arranged for a surveyor to visit. The surveyor established that a repair was needed and offered a range of short and longer-term solutions to remedy the problem. Whilst it is appreciated that the resident had a sound knowledge of the history of the properties, the decision to instruct a surveyor to review the situation was the appropriate response by the landlord. It was entitled to rely on the expertise of its qualified surveyor to establish what remedial works were required.
The landlord’s tenancy agreement supports that in addition to carrying out responsive repairs, it will “from time to time, carry out improvements for the long-term benefit of its properties”. The surveyor’s assessment considered the potential for climate change, and sought to ensure adequate future proofing against such trends. This was a proactive judgement by the landlord’s surveyor to take into account future-proofing and to help avoid further complications at the landlord’s property at a later date. It was reasonable for the landlord to take into account the professional advice it had received, whilst also considering its own obligations as set out within its tenancy agreement.
The resident informed the landlord that he had instructed his own repairs to the guttering and fascia boards in 2017. This was done swiftly by the resident at his own cost in response to storm damage. It is appreciated that the resident takes pride in his home and did the repairs with the best intentions. However, the resident did not seek permission, as is the expectation within his tenancy agreement. The resident was not responsible for the repair, and by instructing a third party to complete the works, they did so at their own risk. The landlord did not have had the opportunity to consider the proposed works, who was to carry them out, and what the potential impacts the works might have had on neighbouring properties.
In its stage one response, the landlord suggested that the unauthorised works had in some way contributed to the repairs they were now facing. It chose not to pursue the matter further, but reminded the resident that in future written permission would be required. This was a fair and reasonable response, which took into account that the resident had the works done with the best intentions at the time.
It is appreciated that repair works can cause disruption and the resident felt anxious about this, however they had an obligation within their tenancy agreement to allow access for the landlord and their contractors to carry out inspections and associated repair works. This includes allowing access to their own property in order for the landlord to reasonably inspect neighbouring properties. The resident was also obliged to allow access for repair works to take place in the manner the landlord deemed safe, this included allowing them to erect scaffolding if required.
The landlord has confirmed to this Service that the repair to the guttering was completed on 1 March 2022, via access from a neighbouring property. It is not clear from the landlord’s records, where this alternative works option came from, as is not one of the two options previously recommended by the landlord’s surveyor. Nonetheless, it is recognised that the repair has now been completed and that the final chosen option appears to have minimised disruption to the resident.
Where it is confirmed that works are required, it is important that the landlord notifies residents in advance of any appointment to inspect their property or neighbouring properties, to carry out any repairs or planned works. This is so that residents can reasonably prepare for any visits, and minimise disruption or inconvenience. The exception to this would be if access was required in an emergency, as is clearly stated in the landlord’s tenancy agreement and responsive repairs policy.
Vulnerabilities details were held by the landlord for both residents, and they made it clear to the landlord that an unannounced visit would cause significant distress. The landlord’s records demonstrate that it attempted to actively engage with the residents on the phone as well as later visiting them to discuss their concerns about the proposed works. It was reasonable that the landlord tried to explain its position with regards to the works in detail with the resident to try to alleviate any concerns. The landlord’s stage one and two complaint responses confirmed that the resident would be given written notice in advance of any appointments required to alleviate any unnecessary concerns. This was an appropriate response and showed empathy and understanding of their vulnerabilities.
Despite being made aware of the possible adverse impact unannounced visits may have had on the resident, and the commitment given in its complaint responses, the landlord’s records do not demonstrate that it acted upon this, as written notice of inspections and repairs visits took place were not provided. This is a failure of the landlord to follow the terms of its own tenancy agreement and repairs policy which state that notice will be given of repair appointments, unless it is an emergency.
It is also unclear from the landlord’s records what further support was offered to the resident to help them manage the impact the impending repair might have. It is appreciated that the landlord will not be the specialist agency to help manage the mental health of their residents, however no evidence of a referral or signposting to floating support agencies was seen within the landlord’s records.
When putting things right for the resident, the responsibility was on the landlord to manage expectations not promise anything that could not be delivered. The Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code encourages that any remedy proposed must be followed through. The resident reported that scaffolding contractors attended and knocked at their property unannounced on 16 February 2022, less than two weeks after the final complaint response. The landlord therefore did not demonstrate that it had learnt from the outcomes of the resident’s complaint by continuing to fail to provide ongoing written notice of appointments, as it said it would.
The landlord’s failure to adhere to reassurances it had given about notice of appointments within its complaint responses, caused further distress for the resident and exacerbated the situation. This amounts to a service failure by the landlord, as it failed to provide advance notice of repairs appointments to the resident as per its tenancy agreement and repairs policy, and despite being aware of the potential adverse impact unannounced visits might have.

The landlord’s complaint handling

There were delays in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s initial complaint. A complaint was raised by the resident on 19 October 2021. The resident had to chase the landlord approximately four times throughout November 2021 for a response to their complaint, causing them inconvenience, time and trouble.
A response from the landlord followed on 3 December 2021. This was 19 working days overdue from the 15 working day timeframe expected within the landlord’s complaint policy. Although this was a significant delay, an apology was offered by the landlord, which was a reasonable response as it acknowledged that it had failed to respond to the resident on time.
The complaint response itself sought to address all the points the resident had raised that required resolution. This was good practice and in line with the Housing Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code, which encourages landlords to set out it’s understanding of the complaint and clarify the outcomes the resident is seeking.
The content of the surveyor’s report on the guttering was key to the complaint investigation as it set out what repair works were required to the guttering and would have supported the landlord in explaining to the resident why the works were required. The landlord’s initial complaint response on 3 December 2021 advised that all repair works were paused, whilst this report was sought. However records show a surveyor’s assessment had already been completed on 15 December 2020. It is not clear as to why the landlord’s complaint investigator had not had sight of the report, given that it provided essential information, and had been concluded a year earlier. The suggestion therefore to pause the repair works until the report had been reviewed caused a further delay in providing the resident a conclusive response as to why the repair works needed to take place, as well as delays to the repair itself.
The resident advised the landlord on 17 December 2021 that they were unhappy with the stage one response, and requested an escalation to stage two. An acknowledgement to this request for escalation was sent on 21 January 2022, 23 working days later and outside of the timeframe in which the resident could have reasonably expected a full response under the landlord’s complaints policy. The acknowledgement apologised for the delay and informed the resident who would be dealing with the case, but gave no assurances when the resident could expect a final response, only that a full response ‘would follow shortly’. This demonstrated that the landlord had not learnt from outcomes in its stage one response, which also had significant delays.
The resident approached this Service on 24 January 2022 to advise that a stage two response remained outstanding. A prompt was sent by this Service to the landlord, encouraging it to respond to the resident within 20 working days. It is unclear how soon the landlord would have responded to the resident had there not been this intervention.
A stage two response was issued by the landlord on 3 February 2022, 32 working days after the request for escalation, and 17 working days outside its published 15 working day target time. The response defined all elements of the complaint and offered apologies where it acknowledged that its service fell short in terms of delayed responses and the attitude of the its staff. Whilst it acknowledged again that there had been a service failure in terms of the delays in the resident receiving a response, it did not offer reasonable redress that recognised the significant time, trouble and inconvenience the resident had experienced in chasing for a response.
In the stage two response, the landlord explained it had reviewed the surveyors assessment and clarified to the resident why the works to the guttering had to take place. The landlord sought to address the resident’s vulnerabilities and concerns, assuring them that future appointments would be made in advance and in writing. This demonstrated empathy and understanding of the impact that unannounced visits had on the resident and offered reasonable remedy to avoid causing the resident any distress in the future.
The Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code maintains that where something has gone wrong, that the landlord should acknowledge and takes steps to put things right. Any remedy that the landlord offers must be reflective of the extent of any service failures and the level of detriment caused to the resident as a result. It is crucial therefore, that the landlord takes responsibility for carrying out remedial actions which they have said that they will. However this Service has seen no evidence of written appointment letters to the resident, which amounts to maladministration, as it demonstrates a failure to deliver the service it set out to resolve in its complaint response.
In examining this case, this Service has reviewed the landlord’s complaint information available on its website. As at 30 January 2023, it is noted that not all sections have been amended in line with the updated Housing Ombudsman Scheme which came into effect on 1 October 2022. This includes the removal of the requirement of a designated person and the updating of complaint response time targets, which differ on the policy and process information published on the landlord’s website.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure by the landlord in respect of its handling of the repairs to the guttering.
In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in respect of its complaint handling.

Reasons

The landlord has a legal obligation to keep in good repair the structure of their property, including the guttering. It sought specialist advice by way of a surveyor’s report which confirmed that repairs were required, therefore there was sufficient evidence that these repairs needed to take place. The resident is obliged, under the terms of their tenancy agreement, to allow access to inspect or repair any part of their property so long as the landlord takes reasonable steps of notifying them of these appointments in writing, unless it is an emergency. However the landlord did not uphold its commitment to inform the resident in writing of when repairs appointments were likely to take place, compounding earlier failings which had caused distress and inconvenience for the resident. The landlord neglected to consider the impact on the resident, despite having been advised that unannounced visits caused their anxiety to worsen.
There were considerable delays in responding to the resident throughout the complaints process. The delay in providing a stage two response in particular was significantly late and required prompting from this Service. The landlord did not seek to review evidence from the surveyor prior to writing its stage one response, and this further delayed a resolution for both the resident and the landlord, who had put the repairs on hold whilst the complaint was ongoing. The landlord also failed to demonstrate that it would provide written notice of repairs appointments, despite reassurances given at both stages of their complaint process. This demonstrated that the landlord did not learn from outcomes of the initial service failure, recognised initially within its stage one response.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

Within four weeks of the date of this report, the landlord is ordered to:
1. write to the resident to apologise for not providing written notice of appointments, and set out how it will ensure this happens in the future
2. provide the Ombudsman a copy of this correspondence
3. pay the resident £100 in recognition of the distress caused by not providing written appointments for inspections and repairs
4. pay the resident £300 in recognition of the inconvenience, time and trouble caused by delays in responding to the resident’s complaint.
The landlord should provide evidence of compliance with the above order and its recommendations to this service within four weeks of the date of this report.

Recommendations

The landlord should review the ‘complaints’ section on its website, to ensure that it is consistent and up to date with the updated Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code, and its own corporate complaints policy.