Sheffield City Council (202402357)

Background

1. The property is a 3-bedroom house and was built using ‘non-standard construction’ methods.
2. The landlord included the property in its planned work programme to address the defective construction and energy efficiency issues associated with the property design. Works included the removal of the defective concrete external wall panels, the construction of new walls and the replacement of the roof, windows and doors. Work commenced in November 2023.
3. The housing records confirm the resident has post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) and non-localised pain disorder.

What the complaint is about

4. The complaint is about:
   1. The landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about the delays in carrying out work to his home.
   2. The landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about the conduct of the contractor’s staff.
   3. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

Our decision (determination)

5. There was reasonable redress by the landlord in its response to the resident’s concerns about delays in carrying out work to his home.
6. There was no maladministration by the landlord in its response to the resident’s concerns about the conduct of the contractor’s staff.
7. There was reasonable redress by the landlord in its response to the resident’s complaint.

We have not made orders for the landlord to put things right.

Summary of reasons

8. The landlord issued the contractor with a contract instruction and liaised with it regarding potential solutions. It also told the contractor to stop working on the resident’s property and arranged for the work to be undertaken by a different provider. The landlord offered an apology and compensation for the distress and time taken to carry out the work.
9. The landlord liaised with the contractor regarding the conduct of its staff.
10. The landlord offered an apology and compensation for the distress and inconvenience caused by its poor complaints handling.

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.

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.

Scope of the investigation.

11. In considering the landlord’s response to the issues raised by the resident, it is noted that he said he was injured after falling into a trench that had been dug by the contractor. Whilst these concerns have been referenced in this report, this Service is not in a position to make a finding regarding possible injuries. This would be more appropriate for a court to consider. In this respect, the resident is advised to seek legal advice if he wishes to take his concerns further.

12. The resident told the landlord on 20 October 2023 that he had concerns about the extent of the work that was due to be carried out on his home. He asked for a schedule of the planned works on 27 October 2023. He said he needed this to help him plan ahead and manage his anxieties. The landlord’s contractor visited the resident’s home on 30 October 2023. It said it provided the resident with a copy of the 12-week programme and confirmed that weekly updates would be provided once the work started.
13. The landlord contacted the resident on the same day to check how the visit went. He told the landlord he wanted a copy of the full work schedule and that the contractor would ‘‘work around him.’’ The landlord chased up the contractor on 1 November 2023, who confirmed they had provided the resident with the requested information.
14. The contractor started work on the resident’s property on 14 November 2023. This included erecting scaffolding and protective coverings to support the excavation of the footings and the removal of the canopy. The contractor removed the concrete wall panels at the rear of the property on 15 January 2024.
15. The landlord noted in an internal communication on 17 January 2024 that the cold weather was affecting the resident and he was struggling to cover the cost of heating his home. It was also noted the situation could continue for several months given the contractor’s programme of works could be constrained by the weather conditions. It said concerns had previously been raised regarding completing the works during the winter months and that a ‘‘decant may be required given the invasive and incredibly destructive nature of the works.’’
16. The resident made a complaint on 22 January 2024. He said he had to keep the heating on 24 hours a day and he was concerned about the safety of his family. He said this was because the contractor left dangerous items on the floor, electrical wires had been left exposed, debris had fallen from the scaffolding and rainwater was entering his home. He said he felt like a ‘‘prisoner in his own home’’ and the situation was affecting his mental and physical health.
17. The landlord asked the contractor to respond to the resident’s complaint. The contractor visited his home on 23 January 2024. It is unclear from the housing records what issues were discussed with the resident during the visit, although the contractor noted he did not raise any concerns. The contractor also noted it was unable to gain access to the rear of the property.
18. The landlord issued the contractor with a contract instruction on the same day. It said there was a risk to the resident’s health as a result of the poor installation of the weather protection around the property. It also noted it had serious concerns over the methodology used by the contractor for ‘‘opening up’’ the property and removing the facade. The landlord’s actions demonstrated it took the resident’s concerns seriously.
19. Work to the resident’s home was paused by the landlord. It said the contractor had to review the methodology it used for removing the concrete wall panels and provide detailed descriptions on the monitoring, timescales and protection that would be put in place.
20. Whilst the landlord’s actions demonstrated it took the resident’s concerns seriously and wanted to put things right for him, it is unclear what information was shared with the resident. There is also no evidence it considered whether it needed to provide the resident with temporary alternative accommodation. It would have been reasonable for the landlord to have done this given the extent of the work and given it knew it would take several months to complete.
21. The landlord’s contractor issued its complaint response on 6 February 2024.
22. When considering how a landlord has responded to a complaint, this Service considers not just what has gone wrong, but also what the landlord has done to put things right in response to the complaint. This includes the steps the landlord has taken to address the shortcoming and prevent a reoccurrence, as well as any compensation offered.
23. In this case, the contractor confirmed it had checked the scaffolding and noted the scaffolding boards and netting were intact. The contractor also confirmed it would replace the wet insulation and make good any damage caused to the garden. Whilst this provided clarity, the contractor did not address the resident’s concerns about exposed live electrical wiring. Neither did it address his concerns about the property being cold or advise him when the work would be completed. This was a failure.
24. The landlord asked the contractor for a copy of its revised method statement on 9 February 2024. The landlord said this information was required so that it could assess potential alternative options. Further requests were made during the month.
25. The resident asked the landlord for an update on 19 February 2024 and 28 February 2024. He told the landlord on 29 February 2024 that the plastic sheeting covering the property was insecure and there was a hole in the wall. The plastic sheeting was resecured and the external areas checked on the same day by the contractor. The contractor said it was not able to check the hole in the bedroom wall as the resident was unavailable at the time of the ad hoc visit.
26. The contractor asked the landlord on 6 March 2024 if it could restart work on the property using the ‘‘old methodology.’’ It said this was because it could not offer a temporary solution to suspend the wall panels without drilling the concrete pillars and risking damaging their structural integrity. It said the works had been placed on hold until the landlord had finalised a decant.
27. The landlord noted on 9 March 2024 that the contractor had still not provided an updated methodology statement. It sought advice regarding its contractual liabilities and continued to chase up the contractor regarding the revised methodology statement. It also arranged to visit the resident on 18 March 2024, but he was not at home at the time of the appointment. The landlord’s actions were reasonable in the circumstances. It concluded on 27 March 2024 that the contractor had not fully considered the methodology that would be employed to facilitate the installation of the structural measures required.
28. The landlord liaised with a construction expert and the contractor in April 2024 to identify potential solutions to ensure the new brickwork was strapped to the building structure. Whilst the landlord’s actions were reasonable in the circumstances, it did not address the resident’s ongoing concerns regarding the impact the situation was having on him or confirm when the work would be completed. This was despite the resident telling the landlord he was ‘‘desperate and did not know who to turn to.’’ This was a failure and demonstrated poor communication on the part of the landlord.
29. The landlord told the resident on 28 April 2024 that it had referred his concerns about his heating and electricity costs to the relevant team. This was some 3 months after the resident first raised concerns. There is no evidence the request was actioned. This was a further failure and meant the resident was unclear if the landlord could offer any support. The landlord also failed to respond to the letter sent by the resident’s representative on 17 May 2024, in which it was noted the resident was struggling and wanted to know when the work would recommence.
30. The resident raised a further complaint on 13 June 2024. He said cold air and rainwater were still entering his property through the windows. He also noted the scaffold netting was loose and the plaster had blown after bolts were screwed into the walls. In addition, the resident noted he had received no response to his query regarding heating and electrical costs.
31. It is unclear from the housing records when the landlord agreed the contractor could recommence work on the resident’s home and on what basis this decision was made. The contractor told the resident on 21 June 2024 that it planned to start work on 1 July 2024.
32. The landlord told the resident on 10 July 2024 in its stage 1 complaint response that the contractor was responsible for ensuring his property was left in a safe condition at the end of each day. It also noted the contractor would provide the resident with a schedule of the planned works and details of the proposed completion date. The landlord did not address the resident’s concerns about the use of additional gas and electricity. Whilst it offered an apology for the frustration and inconvenience caused, it failed to offer any compensation to the resident. This was not consistent with the landlord’s compensation policy. The resident escalated his complaint on 20 August 2024.
33. The landlord noted on 27 August 2024 that the contractor had incorrectly cut the bathroom window mullion and the window needed to be propped up. The resident asked for the work to be stopped on 28 August 2024 until after he had discussed his concerns regarding safety with the landlord. He told the landlord on 1 September 2024 that rainwater was seeping into his house through the windows and ceiling. The contractor did not ensure the resident’s home was watertight until the following morning.
34. The resident told the landlord on 11 September 2024 that little progress had been made and he did not feel safe in the property. He said he was concerned more water would enter his home. He also said the property was draughty given there were still holes in the walls and the windows were exposed. There is no evidence the landlord responded to the resident’s concerns. This was a further failure.
35. The landlord told the contractor on 24 September 2024 that it did not want it to undertake any further work to the resident’s property after the work to the roof had been completed. It arranged for a different contractor to complete the outstanding work. This included fitting new windows and doors, replastering and completing external works. An update was provided to the resident on 26 September 2024. This included noting that it needed to carry out an inspection on 30 September 2024. The inspection took place on this date and the resident was asked to provide a list of work which he believed was outstanding.
36. The landlord confirmed on 16 October 2024 in its stage 1 complaint response that the work to the roof and external walls had been completed. It said it was waiting for the new contractor to provide details on the outstanding work, which would include replacing the windows in stages, as agreed with the resident. It also confirmed an update would be provided to the resident once the work resumed. This provided clarity. Whilst the landlord offered an apology for the delay in carrying out the work, it again failed to offer the resident compensation.
37. The landlord noted on 30 October 2024 in its final complaint response that it had failed to consider the level of disruption caused to the resident and the length of time it had taken to complete the work to his home. This was appropriate. It said a new contractor had been appointed and it had arranged for an independent surveyor to undertake a survey to establish what work was outstanding. The landlord also said it had arranged for the new contractor to visit the resident and it was aiming to complete the work by 18 December 2024. This provided clarity. It offered the resident an apology and £2,000 compensation for the distress and disruption that had been caused. The landlord’s offer of compensation was reasonable in the circumstances and was consistent with its compensation policy.
38. In summary, there were significant delays in carrying out the work to the resident’s home. Whilst the landlord liaised with the contractor and sought advice, its communication with the resident was poor at times and it failed to consider the impact the situation was having on him. The landlord acknowledged the failings in its final complaint response and offered compensation. In this case, there was reasonable redress by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s concerns about the delays in carrying out work to his home. This finding is predicated on the payment of the compensation to the resident.

39. The resident told the landlord on 22 January 2024 that he was unhappy with the way the contractor treated him. He said its operatives were leaving debris, including nails, screws and blades on the floor on a daily basis. He also noted they had damaged his garden.
40. The landlord’s contractor visited the resident’s home on 26 January 2024. It issued its complaint response on 6 February 2024 and said its operatives cleared up at the end of each day and noted the site was checked on a daily basis, although the records provided to this Service do not indicate this was the case. The contractor confirmed that swearing, playing music and operatives arriving on site early was not acceptable and it had advised its staff accordingly. It also said it had told its staff not to park on the resident’s driveway and noted it would make good any damage caused in the garden following the completion of the works.
41. The landlord told the resident on 26 April 2024 that it expected contractors to behave in a professional manner and to ensure debris was removed. It also noted that contractors were not allowed to use radios or permitted to work outside established working hours. This provided clarity.
42. The resident told the landlord on 13 June 2024 that the contractor’s staff were still parking across his driveway and playing loud music. He also said an operative urinated against his fence. The landlord discussed the resident’s concerns with the contractor on 25 June 2024. This was appropriate and demonstrated it took the resident’s concerns seriously. The contractor confirmed that it had advised its staff to be considerate when parking and noted that its delivery vehicles only parked on the street whilst dropping off materials.
43. The landlord noted on 10 July 2024 in its stage 1 complaint response that the contractor had advised its staff to park on the street only when necessary and it had no control over where other residents, delivery drivers or members of the public parked. The landlord also noted its staff had witnessed music being played on site and had raised concerns with the contractor. It confirmed the contractor had taken action against the member of staff who had urinated against the fence.
44. The resident’s representative told the landlord on 17 September 2024 that the contractor staff started work at 6:30 a.m. The landlord confirmed on 16 October 2024 in its stage 1 complaint response that its contractor issued a ‘‘yellow card’’ to its subcontractor following the incident. It also noted that it had raised concerns with the contractor on numerous occasions and the failure to comply with its request had contributed to its decision to ask it to stop working on the resident’s home. The landlord’s actions were reasonable in the circumstances.
45. In summary, the landlord responded to the resident’s concerns in a timely manner. This included liaising with the contractor and reminding it of its obligations. It also provided the resident with updates and arranged for a new contractor to carry out the work to the resident’s home. In this case, there was no maladministration by the landlord in its response to the resident’s concerns about the conduct of the contractor’s staff.

46. The resident made a complaint on 22 January 2024. The landlord forwarded the complaint to its contractor on the following day and asked it to provide a response. This was consistent with its complaints policy.
47. The complaint was acknowledged on 25 January 2024 in accordance with the timescales set out in the landlord’s complaints policy. The resident was advised his complaint had been referred to its contractor and an appointment had been arranged for 26 January 2024 to discuss his complaint in more detail. This was appropriate.
48. The landlord’s contractor issued its complaint response on 6 February 2024. This was consistent with the timescales set out in the landlord’s complaints policy. It did not, however, advise the resident he could escalate his complaint if he was unhappy with the response. This was not consistent with the landlord’s complaints policy or the Housing Ombudsman’s complaints handling code (the Code) operated at the time.
49. The resident told the contractor on 8 February 2024 that he was unhappy with the complaint response and that he would not deal with the contractor anymore. Whilst the contractor shared this information with the landlord, there is no evidence the resident’s complaint escalation request was acknowledged or progressed. This caused delays and was not consistent with the landlord’s complaints policy or the Code. The complaint was closed on 12 February 2024.
50. The resident contacted the landlord on 19 February 2024 and asked for an update on his complaint. There is no evidence the landlord responded to the resident’s query. This caused further delays and meant the resident’s complaint was not progressed.
51. The resident asked the landlord on 25 March 2024 to escalate his complaint. Whilst the landlord responded on 26 March 2024, it did not treat the resident’s concerns as a complaint escalation request. This was a failure and led to him chasing up the landlord on 9 April 2024 and 22 April 2024. The landlord did not respond to the resident’s request for an update on his complaint. This was a further failure.
52. The resident raised a further complaint on 13 June 2024. The complaint was acknowledged by the landlord on 17 June 2024 in accordance with the timescales set out in the landlord’s complaints policy. It said it would provide a response within 10 working days.
53. The landlord issued its stage 1 complaint response on 10 July 2024. This was 8 working days after the deadline date and was not consistent with the timescales set out in the landlord’s complaints policy.
54. The resident escalated his complaint on 20 August 2024. The landlord acknowledged the complaint escalation request on 21 August 2024. Whilst this was consistent with the landlord’s complaints policy, it did not tell the resident when he would receive a reply. The landlord also failed to confirm the nature of the resident’s complaint or the outcomes he was seeking. This was not compliant with the Code.
55. The landlord issued a further stage 1 complaint response on 16 October 2024. It is unclear from the housing records why the landlord did not issue a final complaint response at this stage. It would have been appropriate for the landlord to have done this given the issues raised by the resident related to his previous complaint. The landlord’s failure to do this caused delays and confusion.
56. The landlord issued its final complaint response on 30 October 2024. This was some 2 months after the resident escalated his complaint. It apologised for the delay in responding and noted its stage 1 complaint response of 10 July 2020 was a ‘‘poor, inadequate, unhelpful and inappropriate response.’’ The landlord confirmed it would arrange staff training on customer care and sensitive complaint handling. This demonstrated the landlord took learning from the resident’s complaint.
57. The landlord offered the resident £2,000 compensation. Whilst it has not been possible to establish what proportion was attributed towards the resident’s complaint, the overall offer of compensation was reasonable in the circumstances.
58. In summary, the landlord did not follow its complaints policy at times and there were delays in escalating and responding to the resident’s complaint. The situation caused the resident inconvenience, time and trouble. The landlord acknowledged in its final complaint response that its complaint handling was poor. It offered an apology and compensation. In this case, there was reasonable redress by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s complaint.

Learning

General learning

59. While the landlord’s actions when placed on notice were adequate it should consider whether a more proactive ad hoc on site and compliance check programme might be of benefit.
60. There was a lack of oversight and scrutiny by the landlord in relation to the work carried out by its contractor and its resident feedback arrangements. Where the landlord sets up resident feedback arrangements outside its complaints process, it should ensure it maintains effective oversight of the efficacy of such arrangements at both an individual and collective level.

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

61. We did not identify any concerns regarding the landlord’s record keeping in this case.

Communication

62. The landlord’s communication with the resident was poor at times and it did not address his concerns about the lack of updates from the contractor.