Norwich City Council (202424769)

Background

1. The resident lives in a 2 bedroom flat in a purpose-built block. His young daughter often stays with him. He raised concerns about his front door as he felt it was old and needed replacing. He remains unhappy with how the landlord responded to his concerns.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s request to replace the front door.
3. We have also assessed the landlord’s complaint handling.

Our decision (determination)

4. We have found:
   1. Maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s request to replace the front door.
   2. Service failure in the landlord’s complaint handling.

We have made orders for the landlord to put things right.

Summary of reasons

The handling of a request to replace the front door

5. The landlord failed to complete the door replacement in a reasonable timeframe. It also failed to provide adequate updates to the resident.

The handling of the complaint

6. The landlord acknowledged failings in its handling of the complaint, however it did not fully put things right, or address all of the concerns raised.

Putting things right

Where we find service failure, maladministration or severe maladministration we can make orders for the landlord to put things right. We have the discretion to make recommendations in all other cases within our jurisdiction.

Orders

Landlords must comply with our orders in the manner and timescales we specify. The landlord must provide documentary evidence of compliance with our orders by the due date set.

Recommendations

Our recommendations are not binding, and a landlord may decide not to follow them.

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

What we found and why

The circumstances of this complaint are well known by the parties involved, so it is not necessary to detail everything that’s happened or comment on all the information we’ve reviewed. We’ve only included the key information that forms the basis of our decision of whether the landlord is responsible for maladministration.

7. It is not clear when the resident first reported concerns about his front door. However, we can see that the landlord raised a work order on 4 February 2024 and arranged an appointment for 8 March 2024. It is unclear what issues were reported, and this information should reasonably have been recorded. Not only for audit purposes, but so that the landlord could ensure that it was progressing any necessary actions in a timely manner.
8. The landlord subsequently cancelled the appointment. When it responded to the complaint, the landlord appropriately acknowledged it failed to update the resident about the cancelled appointment. The landlord also appropriately looked into why the appointment did not go ahead and it was established that it was owing to a lack of operative availability.
9. The resident advised that due to the cancelled appointment he suffered a loss of earnings. While, the landlord apologised for this, it was not appropriate that it did not address this further. Where possible, a landlord should try to provide residents with notice of cancelled appointments. However, it is acknowledged that this may not always be possible. Having accepted that the appointment was cancelled at the last moment the landlord should reasonably have considered compensating the resident for the distress and inconvenience caused by its lack of communication. This may not necessarily translate to reimbursement of loss of earnings, as it is accepted that some inconvenience will be experienced as a result of facilitating appointments. However, some payment to recognise that the appointment was not attended and that the resident was caused distress and inconvenience as a result would have been reasonable.
10. The landlord has told us that its records incorrectly stated that the door had been replaced in 2019, which it passed on to the resident. This indicates a record keeping issue. It is also not clear if this error has been explained to him. Understandably it has left him feeling that the landlord has not been transparent with him.
11. It was reasonable for the landlord to explain in its complaint responses that the door would be replaced in the door programme and also set out that it was on hold pending budget and fire door regulation changes. While this was frustrating for the resident to learn, it was appropriate for it to tell the resident, to manage his expectations about when that would be. The landlord said that it had established that the door did not need an emergency replacement. It is not clear from the records how it established this.  As a result, it missed an opportunity to evidence it had inspected the door and satisfied itself and the resident it was safe and in good working order.
12. In the stage 1 response, the landlord also stated that the door programme was due to start later in 2024. It later said that it meant the end of the financial year, which would be by March 2025.  While the explanation is noted, this caused confusion for the resident, and the landlord could reasonably have provided further clarity when confirming its position. There is also no evidence that it provided regular updates to him, particularly as he was told in July 2024 that it was tendering for the works. This is not appropriate as it caused the resident time and trouble in bring the complaint to us and also having to chase the landlord for this. It was a missed opportunity for the landlord to show it was taking his concerns seriously, especially because he was worried about the security risk.
13. The landlord recently told us the door replacement has been delayed several times and one of the reasons was a change in contractors. It also confirmed that it decided to put the door on a list for immediate replacement. We understand that there was an attempted break in at the resident’s property in February 2025, where damage was caused to the frame. It is unclear if this contributed to the landlord’s decision to prioritise the works. The landlord subsequently raised a request for a new door on 9 April 2025. We cannot see that it appropriately communicated this to the resident or what happened to work order raised. It is also unclear why the works could not have been scheduled sooner, bearing in mind that the door had been listed for immediate replacement. Overall, 20 months have passed, where very little updates have been provided to him and the door has not been replaced, understandably causing further distress and inconvenience.
14. While it is positive that the landlord recognised its failings at stage 2, it did not adequately put things right. As such, in line with our Remedies Guidance we order it to pay the resident £300 compensation for the distress and inconvenience caused by its failings. This recognises the lengthy delays involved and the lack of updates provided to the resident.
15. We understand that the door has not been replaced, but that it will be surveyed in December and replaced in early 2026. It is not clear why another survey is needed as it has been identified that the door should be replaced. However, it is recognised that the landlord may consider this necessary to complete the works. Given that the matter is yet to be resolved, we have made an order for the landlord to consider a further award of compensation once the works have been completed.

16. The Housing Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (“the Code”) sets out when and how a landlord should respond to complaints. The landlord has a published complaints policy which complies with the terms of the Code in respect of timescales.
17. The landlord appropriately acknowledged and responded to the complaint and escalation at both stages in terms of timescales. However, the landlord did not:
    1. Address the resident’s concerns about why his neighbour’s doors had been replaced when his was not and his concern about fire safety. As a result, it missed the opportunity to assure the resident that it was not treating him unfairly and that the door was safe. The Code states landlord must address all points raised in the complaint and provide clear reasons for any decisions.
    2. Comment on whether or not it would reimburse him for his loss of earnings.
    3. Attempt to put things right. The Code states that where something has gone wrong, a landlord must acknowledge this. It must set out what actions it has already taken or intends to take, to put things right. It was positive that it apologised for its failings. However, it did not consider its compensation policy or the Code to fully assess the impact caused by these failings on the resident, such as the time and trouble incurred by him.
18. Therefore, we have found service failure and order it to pay compensation of £50 to recognise the distress and inconvenience caused by its handling of the complaint.

Learning

19. It is positive that the landlord recognised some of its failings in its complaint responses and communications with us. However, the steps taken did not go far enough to rectify the issue.

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

20. The landlord’s record keeping in this case was not appropriate. This indicates that relevant staff may not be recording data accurately or with enough details.

Communication

21. The landlord’s overall communication with the resident was poor. It should consider how it can make improvements to updating residents when appointment changes are necessary. It should also consider how it can improve its updates with planned works, to better manage resident expectations.