Nottingham City Homes Registered Provider Limited (202126630)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202126630

Nottingham City Homes Registered Provider Limited

28 July 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

1. The complaint concerns:
   1. The landlord’s handling of communal roof repairs and pests.
   2. The landlord’s response to the resident’s complaint about its customer service.

Background

2. The resident is a leaseholder and lives in a second floor flat.
3. On 16 September 2021, the landlord raised the following repair job; “leaseholder … has called regarding roof tiles large hole in roof and can see daylight”. The job was scheduled to be attended on 4 October 2021, but the appointment did not go ahead. Another job was subsequently raised on 4 October 2021, which additionally noted that “squirrels [had] been removed.” This job was scheduled to take place on 16 November 2021.
4. On the 5 October 2021, the resident contacted the landlord and made a complaint. He was dissatisfied with the level of customer service provided by its staff when reporting and making further enquiries into the roof repair issue. He clarified that there were holes in the roof which needed repairing, and that squirrels had entered the roof space and appeared to be living there. After receiving the landlord’s acknowledgement of his complaint, the resident clarified that his concerns included a range of issues such as not being called back after a call with the landlord was disconnected, not being allowed to speak to a team leader, being blamed by the landlord for the failed appointment, and having to wait six weeks for a new appointment. The resident wanted reimbursement for two days off work for the missed appointment and having to chase the matter up.
5. A stage one response was issued on 26 October 2021, in which the landlord told the resident that the initial appointment failed to go ahead because it had recorded his address incorrectly. It said its staff member had attempted to contact a team leader on an occasion when the resident had called but none had been available, and that its process was to raise such call backs via email so they can be actioned as soon as possible, although it did not give a specific timeframe. It apologised that a team leader had failed to call the resident back, and for the resident having to raise a complaint.
6. After enquires made by the resident‘s MP, the landlord arranged to inspect the repair issue on 5 November 2021. In an email to the landlord that day, the resident confirmed the landlord’s operative “went in the loft and identified the issue being with the ridge and several tiles. As the property is 3 stories high, scaffolding will be needed to complete the work and check the flashing at the back for squirrel holes.” Correspondence between the landlord and resident show that the repairs to rectify the issue were completed on 15 November 2021.
7. The resident escalated his complaint on 15 November 2021 as he felt that the landlord’s complaint response had not fully addressed his concerns. He queried and disputed some of the landlord’s responses about its customer service, and said the landlord had not addressed his complaint regarding damage to the property caused by squirrels nor his request for reimbursement for loss of earnings. He was also unhappy that the response did not address why he had to wait a further six weeks for another appointment, as he now believed the roof repair should have been classed as an emergency and attended within 24 hours. 
8. The landlord issued its stage two response on 26 November 2021, in which it addressed each of the resident’s outstanding concerns specifically, acknowledging and apologising for several points where it could have handled its interactions with the resident better. It said that it had determined the repair to be routine, rather than an emergency, and that the new appointment date had been made in line with its scheduling process. The landlord told the resident it had sent him a compensation form on which he should explain any losses he incurred, and once the claim was received it would investigate and issue its decision accordingly. It explained in detail the steps it would take to improve its customer service, and provided him details on which to contact this Service if he remained dissatisfied. 
9. The resident submitted his compensation request for over £4000 and the landlord responded in April 2022. It declined to compensate him for everything he had claimed as it said the majority of things he had claimed for did not constitute actual financial loss (such the trauma of killing the squirrels, lack of sleep, and being “wrongfully accused” for the missed appointment in October 2021), and it required evidence for any actual losses suffered. However, it did award the resident for £56 for his claim for lost heating and £18.99 for squirrel traps (both for which he had provided receipts), in addition to £10 for cleaning products. The landlord’s insurance team reviewed the resident’s compensation request in June 2022, and upheld the landlord’s decision.
10. The resident referred his complaint to this Service, as he remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s final response. His main dispute was that he believed the repair should have been completed sooner and attended to within an emergency timeframe. He said that as the landlord had not rectified the issue sooner, there had been water ingress and damage to the property by allowing squirrels to enter, in addition to loss of earnings for having to chase the repair as well as the inconvenience and distress of the combined issues.

Assessment and findings

Policies

11. The landlord’s repairs policy defines an emergency repair as being “any repair necessary to keep the property secure and weatherproof, including roof repairs”. It states it will aim to complete emergency repairs on the same day they are reported where possible, or at least within 24 hours. The policy does not give a specific timeframe for routine repairs. However, the usual standard amongst social landlords is around 28 days, and so that is taken as a baseline against which to consider the landlord’s action in this case.
12. The landlord has a discretionary compensation policy which states “where a request for compensation based on alleged civil liability has been received and assessed… and rejected on the grounds of there being no legal liability, the case may be referred… A review will then be undertaken to determine whether an offer of discretionary compensation is appropriate.”

Scope of investigation

13. In his complaints to the landlord, and this Service, the resident sought compensation for, amongst other things, time taken off work, and trauma from dealing with the squirrels. In general, this Service would not propose a remedy of compensation to reimburse a complainant for their time off work, lost income or for impact on health (such as trauma). A request for actual lost earnings, as well as impact on health and wellbeing, would require assessment of liability and, ultimately, a claim to the courts. It would be outside the complaint’s procedure and the Ombudsman’s remit. It is the role of this Service to investigate whether the landlord responded reasonably and in line with its policies and procedures, and consideration has been given to this in the investigation.

The landlord’s handling of repairs to the roof and pests.

14. There is no dispute that the landlord is responsible for repairs to the roof of the block of flats in which the resident’s home is located.
15. A particular frustration of the resident’s was having to wait six weeks for a repair appointment, after the initial appointment had failed to take place. Having considered the landlord’s repairs policy, the resident said he believed the repair should have been classed as an emergency appointment. In its final complaint response, the landlord confirmed that it had determined the repair to be routine. In correspondence with the resident regarding his compensation claim, the landlord’s insurance team said that the repair had not been raised as urgent as the resident did not report water ingress or damage to his property when reporting the hole in the roof.
16. However, the landlord’s repair policy specifically states that it classifies any repair to keep the property “weatherproof”, as an emergency repair, and uses roof repairs as an example. It makes no mention of other criteria for it to be considered an emergency, and, the report of a hole in the roof indicated that the property was not weatherproof. Accordingly, the landlord failed to respond to the issue in accordance with the 24-hour timeframe set out in its own repairs policy. In the circumstances, a landlord would reasonably be expected to at least make a prompt inspection to assess the scale of the problem, and, if necessary, create interim solutions if repairs could not be completed in good time. Nothing in the evidence shows the landlord doing anything like that until it inspected the issue and completed the repair in November 2021, almost two months after it was first reported. Although the repair may have understandably been delayed partly due to the need for scaffolding, the time taken to respond to and complete the repairs clearly exceeded both the landlord’s emergency timeframes, and the basic measure of a time frame for routine repairs. Despite the resident querying the issue in his complaint, there was no response from the landlord except to say the repair was treated as routine. It did not acknowledge that its published repair policy raised an expectation that the matter would be treated as an emergency, nor did it acknowledge that it had also exceeded the reasonable standard for a routine repair. These shortcomings, the delay and failing to address the point when it was raised, were significant enough to be considered service failure.
17. In his complaint to the landlord the resident asked who would be responsible for any damage that might be caused by the squirrels entering the loft area. The landlord did not address the point (which is addressed below). In the landlord’s insurance team’s response to the resident’s compensation claim it referred to the loft space as being communal. The resident disputed this, saying it was not communal. If that is the case, then as the leaseholder, resolving any pests in his property was the resident’s responsibility, and any damage that occurred because of pests would be for him to try to claim on the relevant insurance policy. The resident confirmed that when he first contacted the landlord about the pests he was advised to contact pest control services to address them. In the circumstances that would appear to be a reasonable action. In situations where repair issues have allowed pests to enter a property, a landlord would usually be expected to consider some form of assistance, which, in this case, the landlord did, albeit through its insurance process, by reimbursing the resident for some of the costs he incurred dealing with the pests. Overall, the landlord’s handling of this aspect of the complaint was reasonable.
18. In his response to the landlord’s insurance decision, and in his complaint to the Ombudsman, the resident referred to water ingress and damage from the roof and pests. The resident’s MP emailed the landlord on 12 November 2021 and said “water leaking will be causing damage to the property”. Nothing in the evidence shows that the landlord received reports of actual water ingress (as opposed to potential ingress) or specific damage to the resident’s property prior to this, nor was actual damage reported in the resident’s escalation of his complaint once the repair had been resolved. In his claim for compensation the resident did not specify what items were damaged apart from wooden flooring and loft insulation. There is no indication the landlord was provided with any evidence to support this, and as such its decision to not compensate for such damage was reasonable.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s complaint about its customer service.

19. The landlord issued a stage two final response on the 26 November 2021. It addressed specifically the points the resident had raised about its customer service. It was appropriate that the landlord did this, as it demonstrated that the landlord had a good understanding of the resident’s concerns. While the resident was dissatisfied with, or disputed some of the landlord’s responses (especially regarding the missed visit), the explanations it provided appear to be reasonable and comprehensive, and it acknowledged where some of its service had been lacking.
20. In light of its customer service failings the landlord explained in some detail the steps it had taken to improve its customer service experience This shows that the landlord committed to learning from some of its mistakes, which is one outcome the Ombudsman expects from a landlord in such circumstances.
21. However, the landlord did not address all of the issues raised by the resident. A particular concern of the resident’s was why a team leader did not talk to him or call him back. The landlord’s response did not address the question, and instead focussed on the resident’s behaviour. 
22. In response to the resident’s concern about responsibility for any damage that might be caused by the squirrels, the landlord explained that as he had not raised the matter in his original complaint the landlord could not address it. However, the resident made this concern clear when he clarified his original complaint on 11 October 2021. Also, in general, it is usually not unreasonable for a complainant to add an issue to their second stage complaint, especially when it is directly related to their overall issues of concern. Overall, while much of the landlord’s final response to the resident’s complaint was reasonable, it failed to address all aspects raised, and therefore left the resident’s complaint unremedied, which would understandably have caused him further frustration.
23. The Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code sets out that “In awarding compensation, landlords shall consider…the time and trouble a resident has been put to as well as any distress and inconvenience caused.” In this case, it was clear that the landlord treated the resident’s compensation request as a form of claim and it did not believe that it held any legal liability for any aspects of it. However, having considered the resident’s request, it was unreasonable for the landlord to advise the resident that it it was not able to “offer a form of compensation” for the time the resident had spent in chasing the repair issue, or for inconvenience, given that its policy states when it rejects a claim on the grounds of liability it may undertake a review to determine if discretionary compensation is appropriate. That consideration would have been appropriate in this case, and would have been in line with the Code, especially given that the initial appointment did not go ahead due to an error by the landlord, which delayed the repair further.

Determination

24. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure by the landlord in respect of:
    1. Its handling of communal roof repairs, and pests in the resident’s home.
    2. Its response to the resident’s dissatisfaction with its customer service.

Orders

25. In light of the failings found in this investigation the landlord is ordered to pay the resident £200 compensation. This is comprised of:
    1. £100 in respect of the landlords handling of repairs to fix the roof.
    2. £100 in respect of its handling of the resident’s dissatisfaction with its customer service.
26. The above is in addition to the £84.99 the landlord previously offered, which it should now pay if it has not already done so.
27. Evidence of these payments must be provided to this Service within four weeks of this report.

Recommendations

28. The landlord is asked to consider the findings in this investigation and assess what improvements it can make to its repair and compensation policies to ensure they reflect the true situation with regard to emergency repairs, and that it considers compensation in complaints in line with the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code.