Sheffield City Council (202002843)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202002843

Sheffield City Council

11 May 2021

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 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

The complaint is about the landlord’s:
1. Response to the resident’s request for fence repairs in his back garden.
2. Associated complaint handling.

Background and summary of events

Policies and procedures

As per the landlord’s tenancy conditions booklet ‘You and your home’, the resident is responsible for the repair and maintenance of fences.
As per the landlord’s website for housing repairs, residents who are 60 years old or over, disabled, or suffer from severe health problems qualify for its ‘Handyperson’ service.
As per the landlord’s corporate complaints procedure, it has adopted a three-stage complaints process:
1. Informal stage one: where it should establish the problem, explain what happened, agree a way forward, take action to put things right and apologise to the resident. Furthermore, this should be resolved within three working days, although this “does not necessarily mean that action has been taken to put things right. It can mean that [it has] agreed with the [resident] what will be done to put things right, or have provided an explanation that the [resident] is satisfied with”. It also confirms that “it is usually not necessary to respond in writing” at this stage unless the resident “asks for confirmation of what was agreed”.
2. Formal stage one: where it should make personal contact with the resident as soon as possible and provide a written response within 28 calendar days. If it is unable to meet this timescale, it should contact the resident to explain why, and agree a revised timescale for a response.
3. Formal stage two: where the landlord is to review the investigation process, its conclusions following the investigation, and the steps taken to resolve the complaint. No timescales are quoted on the landlord’s procedure for its response at this stage.

Background

The resident is a secure tenant of the landlord, residing in a two-bedroom ground–floor flat. The landlord is also the local authority.
The landlord’s records confirm that a work item was raised on 9 September 2019 for the ‘Handyperson’ to inspect the resident’s gate and carry out minor repairs if possible. This was completed on the landlord’s system on 11 September 2019 with “all actions complete”. Further commentary from the landlord on this repair states that this job was raised in error, as the resident did not qualify for the ‘Handyperson’ service.

Summary of events

On 6 June 2020, the resident emailed the landlord, confirming the following:
1. The resident worked part-time and was in receipt of means-tested benefits, living in the property with his wife and three children. He considered the fence to be a health and safety hazard.
2. He had reported concerns about the damaged fencing in his back garden, but had been informed that it was not the landlord’s responsibility to fix this.
3. He had filed a complaint against this decision on 18 May 2020 and had received no contact or reply to this from the landlord. As a result, the resident’s local councillor was copied into the email.
4. The resident requested a response to his complaint, including the reason for the lack of response to his earlier complaint. He also requested clarification as to why the landlord had repaired the resident’s back gate “a few years ago”, but now refused to repair the fence, which was “very old”.
On 6 June 2020, the resident’s councillor emailed the landlord to request that it check the case for any exceptional circumstances, which may allow for the landlord to assume responsibility for the fence repairs.
The landlord’s records confirmed that it forwarded the resident’s request for fence repairs to its contractor, who responded on 8 June 2020 to advise that it was the resident’s garden fence and, therefore, it did not maintain this.
The landlord’s records also confirmed that this had then been passed to its repairs and maintenance team on 8 June 2020, who spoke to the resident on 9 June 2020 to explain that “[it did] not undertake work on individual properties”. It also apologised for its late response.
On 8 July 2020, the resident referred the complaint to this Service, stating the following:
1. The resident had suffered a “huge amount of distress and worry” and felt let down by the landlord in its approach to the fence repair, to his complaint, and to his local councillor’s “recommendation”. He also could not understand why the landlord had repaired the resident’s back gate but was now refusing to fix the attached fence. He felt that his financial situation and the “hazard” of the fence’s “danger to my children” was being ignored.
2. To put things right, the resident requested the following:
  1. Information on when the resident’s back gate was fixed.
  2. The reasons why it had refused to repair the fence along with the associated policy, and the details of when the fence was installed and when it was last checked, as he felt that the landlord should maintain the fence and keep this safe.
  3. An explanation as to why he did not receive a written response to his complaint.
  4. He requested that the landlord take the local councillor’s recommendation and fix the fence, as he had three children and a small back yard which was not safe for his children to play in. He also requested a letter of apology and £500 compensation for its poor handling of the complaint.
3. Since the complaint was first raised, the resident had felt that the service received from the landlord was “very poor and ignoran[t]”. He had filed an online complaint on 2 February 2020, and he had received an electronic acknowledgement but nothing further. Furthermore, he had not received a written response to his subsequent complaint correspondence to it.
On 9 July 2020, this Service wrote to the landlord to request that it respond to the resident’s complaint under its complaint procedure within 15 working days.
On 12 August 2020, this Service wrote to advise the landlord again that the resident had yet to receive a written response to his complaint and requested that it respond to him within ten working days.
On 13 August 2020, the landlord contacted this Service to apologise for the delay in its response, due to “an oversight”. It confirmed that it would contact the resident to confirm any details required for it to resolve this.
The landlord’s records confirm that, on 20 August 2020, the complaint was escalated to its formal stage one by the landlord.
On 7 September 2020, this Service wrote to the landlord once more, confirming that the resident had still not received an update on the complaint despite two earlier letters to it prompting a response. We requested a written update on his complaint from the landlord to the resident within five working days.
On 8 September 2020, the landlord provided its formal stage one complaint response to the resident. It confirmed the following:
1. Its records showed that “a complaint was received on 8 June 2020 regarding a lack of response to an earlier enquiry”. The landlord’s records confirmed that the resident was contacted on the following day, during which it apologised and advised that it only repaired fencing where there were exceptional circumstances.
2. However, as it had previously repaired the resident’s gate, it would arrange an inspection of the fencing, “and to arrange a repair if this is deemed appropriate”. It also apologised for the delay in its response.
On 15 September 2020, the resident responded to the landlord to advise that he remained dissatisfied for the following reasons:
1. The resident had initially raised the complaint on the landlord’s website on 18 May 2020.
2. He had also been promised an inspection of the fencing, before being told it would not carry out the repair. This resulted in his complaint of 18 May 2020.
3. The resident also highlighted that he had sent two complaints, his local councillor had contacted that landlord, and this Service had sent the landlord three letters, all before the resident had received a response to his complaint.
4. He had reported concerns over health and safety due to the condition of the fence following heavy winds, “but all [of his] concerns were ignored”.
5. He had gradually addressed the disrepair himself, spending “around £500” on materials, with family and friends helping to do the work, although some work remained outstanding.
6. He strongly believed the landlord should have addressed the concerns, and at least visited the property to inspect the fencing.
7. The resident requested the escalation of the complaint by the landlord, for it to issue £500 compensation for the cost of materials, for it to complete the remaining outstanding work, and for it to explain its handling of the resident’s complaint.
On 15 September 2020, the landlord acknowledged the resident’s request to escalate the complaint.
On 14 October 2020, the landlord provided its formal stage two final complaint response to the resident, which confirmed the following:
1. It had stated in its stage one complaint response that it had received the resident’s complaint on 8 June 2020, as that was the earliest record held within its repairs and maintenance team. It had since seen the resident’s complaint of 18 May 2020, which had been forwarded to the wrong department. It apologised for this failure in communication within the landlord’s internal departments.
2. Following contact from this Service in July 2020, there was a further delay in this being passed to the repairs and maintenance team, for which it again apologised. It escalated the complaint at this point and provided its stage one complaint response. It recognised that it had stated that it would arrange an inspection of the fencing; however, its records confirmed that the resident had advised that he had addressed the issue, therefore the inspection was cancelled.
3. It reiterated its policy that fence repairs would only be completed in exceptional circumstances, as made clear in the tenancy conditions booklet ‘You and your home’. As a result of this, it was unable to reimburse the resident for the costs incurred in repairing the fence. However, due to the delays in dealing with the complaint, it offered him a goodwill gesture payment of £50.
The resident then complained to this Service that the landlord had still not resolved his complaints about the outstanding repairs to his fence, which it had not contacted him about after agreeing to inspect this, or its complaint handling that had required many repeated attempts to contact it by him, his local MP and councillor and this Service in order to obtain a response. He therefore requested written clarification on his case from the landlord, for it to take responsibility for repairing the fence under exceptional circumstances due to damage to this from strong winds that he was unable to afford repairs for and for it to attend to this as it had previously offered. The resident also asked to receive a £500 reimbursement of his own fence repair costs from the landlord and a further £500 in compensation for his distress arising from his above concerns about the outstanding fence repair.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s response to the resident’s request for fence repairs

In response to the resident’s reports of disrepair to his garden fence, the landlord was obliged by its corporate complaints procedure above at paragraph 4 to get a clear understanding of what the resident’s desired outcome was, and to agree a way forward.
The landlord has evidenced that, following the receipt of the resident’s complaint on 6 June 2020, it had directed the request for fence repairs to its contractor. It did not complete the repair because it was not its responsibility to repair. This is in accordance with its tenancy conditions booklet ‘You and your home’ above at paragraph 2, and is, therefore, a fair response to the resident’s request for fence repairs. The landlord communicated this to the resident verbally on 8 June 2020, which was in line with the landlord’s policy in dealing with complaints at the informal stage under its corporate complaints procedure.
The resident remained dissatisfied with this response and referred the complaint to this Service on 8 July 2020. As the landlord’s complaints process had not been completed, we encouraged it to provide a response to the resident by sending a total of three letters on 9 July, 12 August and 7 September 2020, after which the landlord provided its written response to the complaint on 8 September 2020. This confirmed that its policy was not to repair fencing on individual properties. Nonetheless, in view of it having repaired the resident’s gate previously, it agreed to inspect the fence, and apologised for the delay in its response. However, when it contacted the resident via the response, it was informed in his complaint escalation request of 15 September 2020 that he had already work to the fence himself, although some work remained outstanding.
The landlord reiterated its position in its stage two complaint response of 14 October 2020, in that its policy was not to erect or maintain fencing except in exceptional circumstances. It was therefore unable to reimburse the resident for the cost of carrying out the above work himself.
Whilst it is acknowledged that the resident has found the situation distressing, the evidence demonstrates that the landlord ultimately took reasonable steps to meet its obligations to him. While the landlord could have provided a more detailed explanation of its policy regarding the repairing of fences, including the details around the ‘exceptional circumstances’ for it to consider the fence repair, it was obliged to review the circumstances of the case and communicate this to the resident, which it did. Therefore, there was no failure identified in its handling of this aspect of the complaint.
The landlord’s above tenancy conditions booklet and its website above at paragraph 3 did not require it to repair the resident’s fence, or to do so on his behalf under exceptional circumstances as an older, disabled or unwell person who qualified for its ‘Handyperson’ service, and instead made this his responsibility. It was therefore not obliged to reimburse him the £500 that he had spent to do so himself. This also meant that it was not required to pay him a further £500 in compensation for his distress arising from his concerns about the outstanding fence repair because it was not obliged to carry out the repair and he was.
Nevertheless, it is of concern that the landlord appeared to misunderstand the resident’s complaint escalation request as meaning that all of the fence repair issues had been addressed when he reported that some of these were still outstanding, as well as that he has continued to request further information from it. The landlord has therefore been recommended below to contact the resident to re-offer him an inspection of the fencing and to arrange a repair if this is deemed appropriate. It has also been recommended below to write to him to answer his previous requests to it for further information about his case in his complaint correspondence.

Complaint handling

Following the complaint being received initially from the resident on 18 May 2020, the landlord was obliged to contact him and look to resolve the complaint within three working days, in accordance with its corporate complaints procedure. Due to a failure in communication between its departments, this complaint was not directed to the appropriate area. This resulted in the complaint not being addressed by the landlord, as well as distress and inconvenience for the resident.
The landlord addressed the resident’s complaint and contacted him on 9 June 2020; this was 22 days after the initial complaint, with the landlord being prompted for a response by the resident’s further complaint of 6 June 2020.
The resident remained dissatisfied with the response and sought the advice of this Service. Following our correspondence across July to September 2020, as detailed in this report, the landlord escalated the resident’s complaint on 20 August 2020, and provided its response on 8 September 2020. Although this was within the 28-day timescale detailed in its corporate complaints procedure, based on the date it had been escalated, this complaint should have been escalated sooner. The landlord’s failure to provide a timely response contributed to the delay, distress and inconvenience experienced by the resident.
The resident continued to express his dissatisfaction, and escalated the complaint on 15 September 2020, with the landlord providing its final complaint response to the resident on 14 October 2020. The landlord evidenced a fair review of the complaint at this stage; in recognising its failure to respond to the resident’s complaint of 18 May 2020, and for the delay in providing its stage one response to him. It offered £50 compensation for these failures in service. This offer is in line with this Service’s remedies guidance where:

There has been service failure which had an impact on the resident but was of short duration and may not have significantly affected the overall outcome for the resident. For example, failing to meet service standards for actions and responses but where the failure had no significant impact.
The impact on the resident could include distress and inconvenience, disappointment, delays in getting matters resolved, as well as time and trouble.

In summary, it is acknowledged that the resident has found the situation distressing and upsetting, as a result of the landlord’s delay in handling the resident’s complaint which constituted a failure. However, the landlord took the opportunity of the formal complaints process to fully investigate the reports, formally confirm its position supported by its tenancy conditions handbook, and adequately redress those failings by offering appropriate compensation.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration by the landlord in respect of its response to the resident’s request for fence repairs.
In accordance with paragraph 55(b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord has offered redress to the resident prior to investigation which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, resolves the complaint in respect of its associated complaint handling satisfactorily.

Reasons

The landlord failed to provide a response to the resident’s initial complaint in May 2020, with further delays seen following the correspondence from this Service in July 2020, but it apologised to him and offered him compensation for this as well as subsequently responding to his complaints.
The landlord was not obliged to carry out the fence repairs, and it had advised the resident of this, in line with its policy, in June 2020 nor was it required to do so on his behalf under exceptional circumstances or to reimburse his costs for doing so himself.

Recommendations

It is recommended that the landlord:
1. Contact the resident to re-offer him an inspection of the fencing and to arrange a repair if this is deemed appropriate.
2. Write to the resident to answer his previous requests to it for further information about his case in his complaint correspondence.
3. Re-offer the resident the £50 compensation that it previously offered him for its delays in dealing with his complaint, if he has not received this already.
The landlord should contact this Service within four weeks to confirm whether it will follow the above recommendations.
The Ombudsman accepts that, because of the present restrictions due to the corona virus pandemic, the timing of the above actions will depend on what is reasonable in the light of Government guidance regarding the health of the resident and of the landlord’s staff.