Nottingham City Homes Registered Provider Limited (202214529)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202214529

Nottingham City Homes Registered Provider Limited

13 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

1. The complaint is about:
   1. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns about the condition of the patio doors when the resident moved into the property and the amount of compensation offered.
   2. The landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

2. The resident is a tenant of the landlord.
3. The resident signed the tenancy agreement for her home on 30 November 2021. However, on closer inspection of the property, the resident discovered a number of repair issues, particularly with the patio doors in the living room. The doors, which were fitted by the previous tenant, had a large gap next to the frame, which let in cold air. The resident was concerned for her and her children’s health and safety, as well as security, and so did not move into the property.
4. The resident raised repairs with the landlord in November 2021, who attended the property and fitted draft excluders to the door. However, the resident has stated that a large gap remained around the outside of the door. The resident continued to report various repairs and in February 2022 her housing officer also advocated for the patio doors to be replaced by the landlord. This was authorised by the landlord 21 March 2022, with the doors being installed on 4 April 2022.
5. The resident raised a complaint on 14 April 2022. In her complaint she stated that she had to complain several times to get the issue resolved. The resident stated that she had felt unable to move into the property, due to feeling that the doors were not secure, yet had been paying for the property from the start date in November. As an outcome, she wanted the tenancy start date moved and to be refunded the rent paid for the months that she did not live in the property. The landlord responded on 3 May 2022, stating that it would let the resident know in seven days if backdating her tenancy start date was feasible. It acknowledged that there were still outstanding repairs at the property and promised that it was working on finding a resolution.
6. The resident escalated her complaint on 23 August 2022, stating that the landlord had failed to contact her regarding the alteration of her tenancy start date within 7 days as promised. On 20 September 2022 the landlord requested an extension of 10 days, which meant a response was due to the resident by 5 October 2022. The landlord provided this response on 3 October 2022. It explained that during the void period, the doors were inspected and found to be secure with a working lock and no signs of excessive drafts. It decided that the inspection was satisfactory and so stated it was unable to alter the resident’s start date. However, it did recognise that this was not the only repair that the resident had to raise since the tenancy began. It offered £50 compensation, in recognition of the stress caused to the resident, and apologised for the delay in responding to her enquiries.
7. In her complaint to this Service, the resident has explained that she feels that the property was not in a liveable condition when she signed the tenancy agreement. As an outcome, she would like the landlord to adjust her tenancy start date to reflect when it became liveable, after the doors were fitted in April 2022.

Assessment

Scope of investigation

8. The resident has mentioned other repair issues regarding the condition of the property when she moved in, such as problems with the boiler. However, the overall condition of the property was not raised as part of the formal complaint with the landlord. According to paragraph 42 (a) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the Ombudsman may not consider complaints which are made prior to having exhausted a member’s complaints procedure. This is to give the landlord the opportunity to respond to the issue. Subsequently this report will focus on the resident’s complaint concerning the repairs for her patio doors only, as well as her request for compensation and complaint handling. If the resident feels that there are further issues that need to be addressed, she should raise a further complaint with the landlord for it to consider.

The landlord’s response to resident’s concerns about the condition of the patio doors when the resident moved into the property and the amount of compensation offered.

9. The resident’s tenancy agreement states that the landlord is responsible for keeping the structure of the property in repair. This would include exterior windows and doors. The landlord’s repairs policy states that it will attend routine repairs within 30 days. The landlord’s new home standard states that it will provide homes that are safe, secure, in good condition and free from damage. The new home will be structurally safe and sound and all internal and external doors will be in good working order.
10. The landlord acted appropriately initially, by inspecting the property during the void period, and found the patio doors to be secure, with a working lock. It has also stated that it concluded that there were no excessive drafts coming in from the door. After the resident reported that the doors were not in good repair in November 2021, the landlord attended within the above timeframes. It acted appropriately by trying to find a solution to the resident’s draft issue, by fitting draft excluders.
11. However, the resident has stated that she continued to report she was concerned that the door was broken and unsafe between November 2021 and February 2022. This is disputed by the landlord, who has not recorded any other reports of issues with the door until February 2022. Within the evidence, the resident’s housing officer has also stated that the resident reported the issue on numerous occasions between November 2021 and February 2022, which supports the resident’s stance. In-line with good customer service standards, the landlord is expected to keep up-to-date records of its interactions with residents. It is not appropriate that the landlord neglected to record the resident’s reports and is a failing in the circumstances.
12. The above policies state that the landlord is obligated to let the property in a safe and secure condition and ensure that all internal and external doors will be in good working order and free from damage. Once the resident reported that the door remained broken from the void period, the landlord should have re-attended the property and inspected the doors. Although the landlord had initially fitted draft excluders in November 2021, it did not investigate the security of the doors, or respond to the resident’s continued reports of feeling unsafe. This is a failing, as the landlord should have taken the resident’s concerns seriously, and determined for itself if the property was secure.
13. As the landlord did not carry out another inspection in relation to the safety of the doors, it is not possible to comment on if the doors were secure or not. However, it is clear that the doors were not in a suitable condition when it let the property, as the landlord agreed to replace them in February 2022, installing the new doors in April 2022. Although it was reasonable that the landlord replaced the doors, it should not have let the property with damaged doors, as this was against its own policy. This would not necessarily have been a failing if the landlord had acted proactively in rectifying the issue. Nevertheless, the resident had to report the issue on several occasions over the course of a few months, before the landlord took further action. This means that the doors were broken from her signing for the property in November 2021, until April 2022. This is a failing.
14. In her complaint to the landlord, the resident requested a refund for the rent that she had paid, for the months that she felt unable to live at the property. It is not possible to comment on if the property was habitable or not, as the doors were not inspected for their security after the resident reported the issue on moving into the property. Due to the lack of evidence, the Ombudsman cannot assess if the resident should have received a full rent refund. However, it is clear that the landlord did not let the property in a good condition, as the doors needed replacing due to the excessive drafts. It also neglected to keep appropriate records of the resident’s reports, and failed to respond to the resident’s reports of the damaged doors between November 2021 and February 2022. In recognition of these failures, it is the Ombudsman’s opinion that further compensation should be offered to the resident.

The landlord’s complaint handling.

15. The landlord’s complaint procedure states that once the customer makes a formal complaint, it has ten working days to send its response. If a longer time period is required to carry out the investigation and respond, a further period of up to ten working days can be agreed. If the complaint is escalated to stage two, the landlord has up to 20 working days to respond. If the landlord needs to extend this timescale, it must advise the resident of this. It can only extend the timescale by a further ten working days.
16. The resident submitted her complaint on 14 April 2022, with the landlord responding on 3 May 2022. The resident escalated her complaint on 23 August 2022, with the landlord responding on 3 October 2022. The stage 1 response was sent outside of the timescale allowed by the landlord’s complaints policy by one day. The landlord should endeavour to keep its responses within the timescales set out in its own policy.
17. In its first complaint response on 3 May 2022, the landlord promised to consider refunding the rent previously paid by the resident. It stated that it would respond to her with its decision within seven days of the date of that report. The landlord’s complaints policy allows for an extension of up to 10 days to be granted on top of the 10 days allowed at stage 1. The landlord should have requested this additional time as an extension and then provided a substantive stage 1 response within that timescale. However, the landlord did not respond to the resident until 3 October 2022. This was approximately five months later than it had stated and was the result of the resident following up with the landlord. The landlord should ensure they are handling complaints in line with their own policies and procedures, and make proper use of the provisions as they relate to extensions to ensure the landlord follows up appropriately with residents and provide full responses to their complaints at each stage in a timely fashion. The way the landlord handled this aspect of the complaint was not appropriate and was a failing in the circumstances.
18. The landlord stated that it had considered her request and concluded that it had inspected the doors during the void period and found them to be secure, without excessive gaps. This is contradictory to the fact that the landlord replaced the doors in February 2022, due to the gaps around the frame. As the landlord did not inspect the doors after the resident reported that they were unsafe, there was limited evidence for it to assess to determine if the property had been secure for the resident to inhabit. In coming to a balanced conclusion, it would have been appropriate for the landlord to have considered how it handled her repair reports, and to have considered if she was due some compensation for its failings, if not the full rent refund.
19. The landlord acted appropriately in its complaint response by acknowledging that there had been a delay in its response to the resident regarding an email sent by them on 17 August 2022 which was not responded to until 22 September 2022. It also recognised that the resident had been inconvenienced by having to raise numerous repairs since moving into her property. It offered £50 compensation. However, it did not address its failings in how it had handled the repairs to the resident’s patio doors. This is not in line with this Service’s Complaint Handling Code (the code), which requires landlords to identify its errors, acknowledge them and attempt to put them right with an action, or proportionate remedy. In considering its failings in the handling of this case, the landlord should again have considered the amount of compensation it had offered, as £50 was not proportionate in the circumstances.

Determination (decision)

20. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the reports of the condition of the patio doors when the resident moved into her property and the amount of compensation offered.
21. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in its complaint handling.

Orders

22. Within four weeks of the date of this report, the landlord is ordered to:
    1. Pay the resident £350 in recognition of the failings identified, inclusive of the £50 previously offered.
    2. Pay the resident £100 in recognition of the failings found in its complaint handling.
23. The landlord must send evidence of compliance with these orders within four weeks of the date of this report.

Recommendations

24. It is recommended that the landlord re-assess how it records and responds to repair reports. The landlord needs to make sure that repair requests are being recorded and actioned.