Rochdale Boroughwide Housing Limited (202207014)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202207014

Rochdale Boroughwide Housing Limited

1 December 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 response to the resident’s report that her fence had collapsed.

Background

  1. The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord. The property is a house with a rear garden that backs onto a road.
  2. On 21 February 2022 the resident reported to the landlord that her rear boundary fence had collapsed. The landlord logged a job to repair the fence, with a target date of 4 July 2022. On 31 May 2022 the landlord’s repair records show that the job to repair the fence was closed and a job to replace the fence was raised. This would appear to coincide with the landlord’s operative inspecting the fence, removing it from the property and advising the resident that it would be replaced rather than repaired.
  3. Following this, the resident raised a complaint about the length of time it was taking to replace the fence, which she felt could have been repaired instead. She said her garden backed onto a busy road and with the fence removed she had no privacy and nowhere for her grandson to play outside. She also said that people were using her back garden as a short cut. Both the resident and her local councillor corresponded with the landlord during the complaints process.
  4. In its complaint responses in June and July 2022, the landlord explained that it had a large backlog of fencing jobs caused by the pandemic and a worldwide shortage of materials. It said it had 743 fencing jobs in its queue and that 600 of them were reported before the resident’s, with many households in a similar situation to the resident. It said it was taking on two additional employees to focus solely on fencing in order to address the backlog. It could not give a precise date that the resident’s fence would be replaced, however, it had ordered the materials and would expect it to be completed in October 2022, and before then if practicable.
  5. The local councillor responded to the stage two complaint response the same day it was issued. They requested that the landlord conduct a health and safety risk assessment due to the garden backing onto a busy road and erect a temporary mesh fence in the meantime. The landlord responded by signposting the local councillor to this Service, as the complaint had exhausted its internal complaint process. The councillor approached this Service on the resident’s behalf that day as the resident was unhappy with the landlord’s response and the estimated timeframe for replacing the fence. Following this, on 17 August 2022, the landlord erected the new fence.

Assessment and findings

  1. When the resident reported that her fence had collapsed on 21 February 2022, the landlord responded appropriately by logging a job for the fence to be repaired. The landlord’s responsive repairs policy effective from February 2022 confirms that fencing jobs have a target timescale of 90 calendar days. The available evidence indicates that the landlord attended 9 days over target but was unable to complete the fence repair as it identified that a full replacement was required. It then took the landlord another 11 weeks to replace the fence.
  2. In its complaint responses the landlord said that attendance would initially be to inspect and either carry out minor repairs where possible or remove old fencing and measure for new fencing where required. It is acknowledged that the landlord needed to inspect the fence before determining the appropriate course of action and that it subsequently had to raise a new repair for the fence replacement. However, it is reasonable to expect that the landlord would inspect and complete the repair or replacement within the 90 calendar day target. This is because there is no indication in the repairs policy that replacement fencing may take longer than this.
  3. The landlord explained in its complaint responses that it had a backlog of fencing jobs and other repairs due to a combination of delays caused by the Coronavirus pandemic and a worldwide shortage of materials. It said that it advised the resident in April 2022 that fencing jobs were around 12 weeks behind schedule. It is acknowledged that the pandemic was an unprecedented time and that government restrictions have resulted in social housing providers having to manage a backlog of repairs. It is also noted that the landlord has taken appropriate steps to address the backlog of fencing repairs by employing two additional employees to focus solely on fencing.
  4. However, the landlord’s responsive repairs policy effective from February 2022 says that the landlord had “realigned repairs response times in order to give customers some clarity about how long they may need to wait for a repair to be completed”. It is therefore reasonable to expect that the landlord would complete repairs in line with the new target timescales, which as outlined above was 90 calendar days in the case of fencing jobs.
  5. Furthermore, the resident and the local councillor raised concerns from at least 9 June 2022 that members of the public were using the resident’s back garden as a cut-through. It is of concern that there is no evidence the landlord gave any consideration to addressing the resident’s concerns about security, including any temporary measures it could take to prevent people from accessing the resident’s garden.
  6. The local councillor raised the security issues again following the landlord’s stage two response but there was a further failure by the landlord to address those concerns; instead it signposted the local councillor to this Service. Although it was correct that the landlord’s internal complaints process had been exhausted, the landlord should have considered the steps it could take to address the resident’s security concerns in the interim.
  7. The delays in completing the fence replacement and the failure to address the resident’s concerns about security amount to maladministration. To put things right the landlord is ordered to apologise to the resident and pay her £250 compensation for the distress and inconvenience caused. This is in line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance which confirms that awards of £100-£600 will be made where the landlord’s failure has adversely affected the resident.
  8. Lastly, it is of concern that the target dates for both repairs recorded on the landlord’s systems were 90 working days from when the jobs were raised, rather than 90 calendar days. It is not clear whether the target dates were adjusted due to circumstances at the time the jobs were raised, or whether the landlord is routinely scheduling fence repairs for 90 working days instead of 90 calendar days. The landlord is therefore ordered to review its repairs logging practice to ensure that target timescales are in alignment with its responsive repairs policy.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in respect of its response to the resident’s report that her fence had collapsed.

Orders

  1. Within five weeks of the date of this report, the landlord is ordered to:
    1. Apologise to the resident in writing for the service failures identified by this investigation.
    2. Pay the resident £250 compensation for the distress and inconvenience caused by its handling of the fence replacement.
    3. Review its repairs logging practice to ensure that target timescales are in alignment with its responsive repairs policy. It should report back the Ombudsman on the steps it has taken in this regard.