Nottingham City Homes Registered Provider Limited (202200729)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202200729

Nottingham City Homes Registered Provider Limited

12 September 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 is about the landlord’s handling of:
   1. Repairs to the resident’s roof tiles.
   2. The associated complaint.

Background

2. The resident is a tenant of the landlord. The complaint was raised by the resident, and, at times, by her representative. For clarity this report will refer to both the resident and her representative as ‘the resident’,
3. The resident initially reported issues with her roof tiles in October 2020. An inspection took place in November 2020 and the records show that work was required to repoint and re-bed all ridge tiles and this required scaffolding. The repair was re-raised in July 2021 as it had not been completed as expected.
4. The resident initially raised a complaint in October 2021 as she was dissatisfied with the length of time it was taking to complete the works required. She was concerned as she had been told in December 2020 that the roof tiles were not safe. She later added that the landlord had advised that the works would proceed on 11 November 2021 without the use of scaffolding but she had since been told that scaffolding was required. Operatives then attended to remove the scaffolding on 14 December 2021 despite no works taking place and she was then told that the scaffolding was not placed correctly. The resident noted that the impact of Covid-19 was not a reasonable justification for the delay and that she had invested significant time and trouble pursuing updates and had lost the use of her garden due to her concerns about health and safety. Once works were reported as completed, she expressed concern that the existing tiles were re-fixed rather than replaced as expected and that there had been damage caused to her caravan by the scaffolding. She wanted reassurances that the work had been completed to an acceptable standard.
5. In response to the resident’s complaint, the landlord explained that it had been working through a large backlog of roofing repairs due to the impact of Covid-19 on its services and apologised for the length of time it had taken to complete the repairs. It confirmed that the work was completed utilising the scaffolding which was erected on 3 December 2021. It explained that at the time of the initial visit, the roof was deemed safe and not in need of immediate repair. It confirmed that it had planned to address the matter as part of its planned works programme and apologised that the resident had not been informed of its intentions. It asked the resident to provide the CCTV footage from the cameras at the property so that it was able to consider her concerns about damage to her caravan further. It explained that it did not feel that a renewal of the roof tiles was needed and confirmed that its repairs supervisor had advised that there were no issues with the repairs carried out. It apologised for the time taken to complete the works.
6. The resident referred her complaint to this Service as she said she had been told that the roof tiles were a health and safety risk in November 2020. She said she had chased the landlord regarding the work on multiple occasions but had not been given an update. She was dissatisfied with the length of time the works had taken to complete and the landlord’s complaint handling. She wanted compensation for the delays and time and trouble she had spent pursuing the matter.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s handling of repairs to the resident’s roof tiles.

7. The landlord’s repairs policy confirms that the landlord is responsible for repairs needed to the external structure of the property including roofs. The landlord’s website confirms that emergency repairs should be completed within 24 hours. Non- emergency repairs are put into groups according to how urgent the repair is; however, no specific timescales are provided. In line with best practice, landlords are usually expected to complete non-multiagency repairs within a reasonable timescale which would usually be within 20 working days. in some cases, repairs may take longer, for example where materials need to be sourced or scaffolding is required. The landlord would be expected to provide regular updates to the resident on the progress of any repairs.  .
8. In this case, it is not disputed that the roof tile repair took a significant amount of time to complete between November 2020 and December 2021. There was likely to have been some delay during this period due to the impact of Covid-19, however, this does not account for the entirety of the delay in this case. The landlord would have been expected to provide regular updates to the resident on the progress of the repair and the reasons for any delays, however, there is a lack of evidence to confirm that it did so. This was likely to have caused inconvenience to the resident who needed to spend time and trouble pursuing the repair.
9. The resident maintains that she was told in November 2020 that the roof tiles posed an immediate health and safety risk and that she was under the impression that the roof tiles were due to be replaced rather than re-fixed. The landlord’s records following the inspection in November 2020 show that work was required to repoint and re-bed the tiles. There is no evidence to suggest that the operative had recommended that the tiles should be replaced. The landlord was entitled to rely on the opinion of its qualified staff and contractors who determined that a replacement was not needed. Whilst we do not doubt the resident’s concerns, there is no evidence to suggest that the roof tiles were an immediate health and safety risk or that a repair was needed urgently. It would, however, have been appropriate for the landlord to have explained this to the resident from the outset in order to manage her expectations.
10. The landlord acted appropriately by inspecting the works once they were completed in view of the resident’s concerns that they had not been done correctly. It also took reasonable steps to investigate her concerns that the scaffolding had damaged her caravan and confirmed its position. It explained that it would need the resident to provide CCTV footage from the cameras at the property which showed the caravan being damaged in order to investigate the matter further. This was appropriate as the landlord would need evidence that its operatives caused the damage before it could provide its position on the resident’s claim.
11. Whilst the landlord has apologised for the length of time taken to complete the repairs, it failed to offer suitable redress to the resident for the inconvenience caused by the delays or the time and trouble she had spent pursuing this matter. The landlord should pay the resident £150 compensation in recognition of the inconvenience caused by its poor communication and repair delays. This amount is in line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance (available on our website), which states that amounts between £50-£250 are considered proportionate in instances of service failure which had an impact on the resident but may not have significantly impacted the overall outcome of the complaint. Examples include failure to meet service standards for actions and responses but where the failure had no significant impact or repeated failures to reply to return phone calls.
12. The amount awarded has been set in the midway range as the Ombudsman does accept that the Covid-19 pandemic would have had an impact not only on the repairs but also on the landlord’s staffing arrangements, however more could have been done to keep the resident informed.

The landlord’s handling of the associated complaint.

13. The landlord’s complaints policy states that it has a two-stage complaints process. At stage one, the landlord should issue a response within ten working days. if the resident remains dissatisfied, they can escalate their complaint to stage two. At stage two, the landlord should respond within 20 working days.
14. In this case, the resident initially raised a complaint on 26 October 2021. The landlord issued its stage one complaint response on 10 November 2021 which was within a reasonable timescale. The resident escalated her complaint on 17 December 2021 which the landlord acknowledged. The resident chased a response on 17 January 2021 and was informed that the complaint had been withdrawn. The resident disputed that she had agreed to this. The Ombudsman would have expected to see sufficient evidence to show that the resident had agreed to withdraw her complaint if this was the case but the landlord has not provided evidence which confirms that she had. The landlord’s records suggest that the complaint was closed as all the repairs had been completed. This is not a sufficient reason for closing the complaint and it would have been appropriate for the landlord to have addressed the resident’s concerns at stage two as requested. This was likely to have caused inconvenience to the resident who was not informed that her complaint had been withdrawn and needed to spend time and trouble pursuing a response.
15. The complaint was escalated again on 18 January 2022 and the landlord informed the resident that it may take longer than expected to review the complaint as it needed to review CCTV footage in view of her concerns regarding damage to her caravan. The landlord issued its stage two complaint response on 1 February 2022. This was approximately 29 working days from the resident’s initial escalation on 17 December 2021. The landlord acted appropriately by explaining that there would be a delay and providing a new response timescale in order to manage the resident’s expectations.
16. In addition, the landlord would be expected to address each aspect of the resident’s complaint within its complaint responses. The landlord failed to address the resident’s request for compensation in view of her time and trouble raised in her escalation. In its communication to the Ombudsman, the landlord advised that it had not received a compensation claim form from the resident. In line with the Ombudsman’s complaint handling code (available on our website), landlords are expected to consider offering compensation by way of redress as part of complaint responses in view of any service failures which result in distress and inconvenience or time and trouble caused to the resident. In view of the delays and poor communication, it would have been appropriate for the landlord to respond to the resident’s request for compensation as part of its complaint response.
17. In view of the service failures identified, the landlord should pay the resident £100 compensation in recognition of its withdrawal of the resident’s complaint without sufficient evidence to show that this was agreed and its failure to consider the resident’s request for compensation at an earlier stage. This amount is in line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance as detailed above.

Determination

18. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure by the landlord in respect of its handling of repairs to the resident’s roof tiles.
19. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure by the landlord in respect of its handling of the associated complaint.  

Orders

20. The landlord is ordered to complete the following actions within four weeks:
    1. The landlord is to pay the resident £250, comprised of:
       1. £150 in recognition of the inconvenience and time and trouble caused to the resident as a result of the delays to complete the repair and the landlord’s poor communication.
       2. £100 in recognition of the inconvenience caused by the landlord’s poor complaint handling.

 Recommendations

21. The landlord should consider carrying out staff training for complaint handlers to ensure that the correct complaints process is followed and documentary evidence is recorded where a complaint is withdrawn by a resident if this is the case.