Rotherham Metropolitan Borough Council (202342162)

Background

1. The property is a flat with its own front door. The police forced entry into the resident’s property on 15 December 2022, which broke the front door. The police arranged for the door to be made secure by the landlord. However, a member of the resident’s family told the landlord on 16 January 2023 they thought the door was insecure. The resident has disclosed vulnerabilities.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s:
   1. Response to securing and repairing the front door, and an associated compensation request for stolen belongings.
   2. Complaint handling.

Our decision (determination)

3. We found there was:
   1. Maladministration by the landlord in its response to securing and repairing the front door, and an associated compensation request for stolen belongings.
   2. No maladministration regarding the landlord’s complaint handling.
4. We have made orders for the landlord to put things right.

Summary of reasons

5. The landlord failed to follow its repair policy timescales when permanently repairing the resident’s front door. It did not consider the impact on the resident. The landlord appropriately explained that it was not responsible for the resident’s stolen belongings and gave adequate signposting to other insurance types.
6. We found the landlord followed its complaint handling policy and our Complaint Handling Code (the Code), responding to the resident within the applicable timelines.

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. On 16 December 2022, the police raised an out-of-hours repairs request at 02:20am after forcing entry into the resident’s flat. The landlord’s repair log states: “information that frame is also damaged.” Its repair policy categorises jobs according to risk of harm to property or person and it was correctly allocated a 4-hour emergency response. Its policy states this “may involve a ‘make safe’ followed by a more permanent fix.” It gives the example of a smashed ground floor window as a potential security risk requiring emergency boarding up. This temporary measure is to then be followed up by a permanent repair prioritised as an urgent 5-day response.
8. The landlord’s repair record shows the door was “made safe and board up” at 03:20am on the same day, in compliance with its policy. This was an appropriate response for a temporary repair. But there is no evidence the landlord raised any follow-on works for a permanent repair as required by its policy.
9. On 16 January 2023, a member of the resident’s family telephoned the landlord to say the police had broken the flat door. The family member told the landlord that people were “hanging around the flat” and they feared the door was not secure. They were explicit about the sensitive and irreplaceable nature of some of the contents inside. The landlord’s record states that the family spent £2,000 “making it comfortable” for the resident but not what this money paid for. Our investigation tried to clarify this, but the resident had no further information.
10. The landlord states its system does not record the times of telephone calls. However, the internal email on 16 January 2023 recording the contents of their call is timed at 10:52am. Therefore, it is reasonable to conclude that they called at that time or earlier. Following the call and the concerns raised, it would have been reasonable to expect the landlord to visit the property and inspect the security of the door. However, there is no evidence to suggest this happened at the time.
11. Gas check visits took place on 3 occasions between the day police forced entry and the day the family member reported concerns about the door’s security. Each visit is recorded stating the flat was boarded up and seemed empty. Therefore, these records would have served as reminders to the landlord of its initial temporary repair. It would have been reasonable to expect the landlord to investigate whether the permanent repair remained outstanding after each visit, or whether it had been completed without a record being made.
12. On 18 January 2023, the landlord’s record shows that the same member of the resident’s family called again. This appeared to be a follow-up call, requesting a call back about the flat. The landlord said it visited on the same day, with police, at 2pm.
13. The landlord raised a job following the visit on 18 January 2023. The repair log notes the door was boarded in December 2022 with the resident being in prison and a family member reporting it was not secure. It notes the landlord had attended and “confirmed door not secure.” The door was boarded up with ply between 14:40pm and 15:30pm. Again, there is no evidence the landlord raised any follow-on works for a permanent repair at this stage.
14. On 22 June 2023, the National Association for the Care and Resettlement of Offenders (NACRO) emailed the landlord. They provided a crime reference number of a previous burglary and referred to “a door being removed and a burglary occurring.” They told the landlord the resident was concerned they had been burgled again and wanted confirmation the flat was secure.
15. This concern was not passed to the housing team until 10 July 2023. NACRO emailed the landlord again on 19 July 2023 and re-iterated the resident’s concern about security of the flat after a previous burglary.
16. There is no evidence to show the landlord took any action to permanently repair the door between 18th January 2023 and 28 July 2023. This is a period of over 6 months with no action or any communication to the resident or his representative relating to the door.
17. The landlord replied to NACRO on 28 July 2023 that “the property was secure” when it visited on 19 July 2023. Its reply was over a month after NACRO raised a concern. It is further evidence the landlord failed to give due consideration to the security of the door per its responsibilities. Neither did it duly consider the impact on the resident who it was aware had vulnerabilities.
18. On 4 August 2023, the landlord emailed NACRO to say it had visited the block of flats on 2 August 2023. The landlord’s repair log shows it identified the existing board had been “unscrewed”. It recommended that a “temp fire door and frame” be fitted.
19. On 5 August 2023, the resident complained that although police arranged for the landlord to secure the flat after his arrest on 16 December 2022, the landlord had not repaired the door properly. The resident said his possessions were stolen in a burglary and this had a “big impact” on his mental health. He described a feeling of powerlessness “sat in prison worrying” with it being out of his hands to do anything. He said knowing more could have been done had left him feeling suicidal.
20. The landlord’s stage 1 response refers only to the temporary repair in December 2022 and not the temporary repair in January 2023. The landlord acknowledged the risk of break-in “when a property is left empty for any length of time”. It states “no product on the market” could prevent that. It said the resident’s door had been fixed with industry standard fittings and all works completed within prescribed timelines. It did not accept liability for the resident’s stolen belongings and suggested he claimed through his own insurance company. The tenancy agreement sets out how residents should protect against loss of belongings through home contents insurance. The landlord was fair in its response to the resident.
21. A job to replace the resident’s door was not raised until 3 August 2023 and completed on 15 August 2023. This was 238 days beyond the landlord’s 5-day urgent repair timeline. This represents a significant delay, especially given repeated reports about the flat’s security. Although front door replacements can take time, the landlord showed it could complete the work promptly by finishing the repair within 13 days once the job was finally raised.
22. The resident was also obligated by the tenancy agreement to plan for someone to look after the flat due to his absence exceeding 4 weeks. He says they were unable to do this because the flat had no door so they could not get access, due to the door not being replaced within an appropriate timeframe.
23. While the landlord acknowledged the resident’s vulnerability, it had not recognised the significant impact of the delayed repairs on him and his mental health. The landlord should have considered the impact this was having on the resident and sought to prevent unnecessary distress and inconvenience.
24. Our investigation found the landlord had been flexible when storing personal items for the resident. The landlord considered the resident’s circumstances and stored them for longer than would normally be expected. It was accommodating when the resident did not turn up on a pre-arranged collection date. The landlord then arranged directly with him to deliver the items to an address the resident chose. This took place on 15 October 2024 “as a favour to help him” and it is positive the landlord did this at no charge.
25. Our remedies guidance sets out that compensation is appropriate to put things right where the landlord’s failing amounts to maladministration with significant impact on the resident. The landlord knew the resident was vulnerable but did not give this proper consideration. It failed to respond promptly to security concerns that were raised repeatedly, including by NACRO. In ordering £500 in compensation, we have considered the overall distress and inconvenience caused by significant delays when appropriately securing the resident’s property.

26. The landlord’s policy sets out a 2-stage process. The policy states the landlord should acknowledge stage 1 complaints within 2 working days but gives no timeframe to acknowledge stage 2 complaints. It states the landlord should respond to stage 1 complaints within 10 working days and to stage 2 complaints within 20 working days. Both the landlord’s definition of a complaint and the policy timeframes are compliant with the Code.
27. The resident complained on 5 August 2023 and there is no evidence the landlord acknowledged it. However, it sent the resident its stage 1 response on 18 August 2023. This is within 10 working days and complies with its policy and the Code.
28. The resident escalated the complaint on 29 November 2023 which was outside the landlord’s one-month timeframe. He said the delay was due to his recent prison release and it is positive the landlord accepted this. It correctly escalated to a stage 2 complaint after a “change of plan”. It is unclear what this meant because non-escalation would have been non-compliant with its complaint policy and a potential service failure. There is no evidence the landlord acknowledged the stage 2 complaint but sent its final response on 22 December 2023. The landlord sent the response to the resident within 20 working days which complies with its policy and the Code.

Learning

29. The landlord’s response did not identify any of the failures outlined in this report, so it missed opportunities for learning. Its complaint policy acknowledges all complaints may bring learning including those not upheld. The Code requires landlords to “look beyond the circumstances of the individual complaint” to consider service improvements.

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

30. This investigation identified examples where the landlord’s poor record-keeping failed to demonstrate the actions it took. The landlord may want to remind staff about the importance of keeping accurate and easily accessible records.

Communication

31. Our investigation found some of the landlord’s communication to be dismissive towards the resident’s security concerns. The landlord may want to consider staff training in this area.