South Tyneside Council (202313544)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202313544

South Tyneside Council

7 May 2024

 

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 handling of various repairs to the property.

Background

  1. The resident holds a secure tenancy which started on 23 May 2022. The property is a 1-bedroom first floor flat. The resident has vulnerabilities including autism, ADHD, and mental health concerns. The resident’s mother acted as his representative, and so this report references ‘the resident’ but refers to actions of both the resident and his mother.
  2. On 20 January 2023, the resident made a complaint to the landlord. He said he could not live at the property because of outstanding works required. These included the windows not closing, the kitchen needed replacing, the front door needed replacing and various rooms needed plastering. He said that it had booked repairs to the kitchen and windows, but the appointments were too far in the future. He said that the landlord had not helped him and that it had affected his health.
  3. The landlord provided its stage 1 complaint response on 3 February 2023. It said that it inspected the windows in October 2022, and it tried to complete repairs 3 times, but it could not gain access. It said it attended twice in December 2022 to repair the kitchen, but it could not gain access. It said it had attended the property to plaster some areas, but it could not complete the works because the area was not clear. It outlined dates of when it would complete repairs to these areas and for work to the front door. It partially upheld the complaint based on delays for works to the front door and plastering, but it could not fully uphold the complaint because the resident did not provide access at pre-arranged appointments for the other works.
  4. The resident escalated his complaint on 21 February 2023. He was unhappy that the landlord did not uphold his complaint based on him not providing access. He said missed appointments occurred because he had not received any notification of when they were and that he was not living at the property because of the number of outstanding repairs. He said that it had completed repairs to the front door and plastering but the rest of the repairs remained outstanding. He said he had spent money on bills and rent while being unable to live there and he said that the matter had impacted his health.
  5. On 21 March 2023, the landlord provided its stage 2 complaint response. It said:
    1. It had reviewed its internal systems and found that it had sent appointment confirmations via text messages to an old contact number.
    2. It acknowledged that he had requested to update his contact number on 4 occasions between November 2022 and February 2023, but it only updated its records on the last occasion. It apologised for this and acknowledged the delays in completing the works because of the error.
    3. It had completed the repairs to the windows, plastering and front door.
    4. It had attempted to complete kitchen repairs on 23 February 2023, but the resident refused the works. It had rebooked the repairs for 4 April 2023.
    5. It would repair a crack in the bedroom ceiling on 22 March 2023. It would also paint the ceiling as a goodwill gesture on 27 March 2023.
    6. It had investigated a fence repair which was not part of the original complaint. It said it had attended in October 2022 but was unable to gain access to inspect it. It had arranged to inspect again on 20 March 2023 but was unable to gain access.
    7. It had addressed reports of a leak twice in line with its repair timescales.
    8. It was unable to consider compensation for any damaged goods because the resident was unable to provide evidence of the damaged items.
    9. It offered £130 compensation. This was made up of £30 for the delays in works for the plastering and the front door plus £100 for the stress and inconvenience caused by not updating the resident’s contact details which caused delays to the works.
    10. It would update its customer services team to ensure that it recorded phone numbers at the start of each call, in line with its procedures.
  6. The resident escalated his complaint to this Service as he was unhappy with the response and the level of compensation offered by the landlord. The complaint became one that this Service could investigate on 5 February 2024.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

  1. The resident said that the landlord’s handling of the repairs affected his health. While this Service does not doubt the resident’s comments about his health, it is outside our remit to draw conclusions on the causation of, or liability for, impacts on health and wellbeing. This is in accordance with paragraph 42(f) of the Scheme. This Service has considered the general distress and inconvenience which the situation may have caused the resident.

The landlord’s handling of various repairs to the property

  1. The landlord did not dispute that there were failings in its handling of the repairs. In its final complaint response, it stated that it had failed to update the resident’s contact details on multiple occasions which had resulted in missed appointments because the resident was not at home. It also acknowledged it had failed to complete the repairs to the front door and plastering within its repair timescales.
  2. Where there are failings by a landlord, as is the case here, this Service will consider whether the redress offered (apology and compensation) put things right and resolved the resident’s complaint satisfactorily in the circumstances. In assessing this, we consider whether the landlord’s offer of redress was in line with our dispute resolution principles to be fair, put things right and learn from outcomes.
  3. Before it let the property, the landlord completed an empty homes inspection which showed the property met its lettable standard. After the resident moved in, he reported repairs required to the property. The resident has told this Service that 2 leaks occurred in the kitchen because of damages caused by the previous resident. There is no evidence to suggest that the landlord was aware of the concerns before the resident moved in and therefore the leaks were not a fault of the landlord.
  4. Between August 2022 and March 2023, the landlord arranged multiple repairs, but it could not complete them due to a lack of access. This was likely caused by the landlord not updating the resident’s contact details which meant that he was unaware of the appointments. This included 5 missed appointments for the kitchen inspection and repairs, and 6 missed appointments for the window inspection and repairs. The landlord’s error inevitably would have impacted its repairs resources and capacity to respond to other repairs.
  5. During this time, the resident contacted the landlord on 9 occasions asking for updates with the repairs. This would have understandably caused distress and inconvenience to the resident as he would have been unaware of its attempts to arrange the repairs, which caused him to frequently chase the landlord for updates. The landlord also attempted to contact the resident on 9 occasions during this time, but some were unsuccessful due to it not updating the contact number.
  6. When the resident asked for call-backs, the landlord did not respond proactively which caused him to repeatedly make contact. For example, the resident requested a call-back on 14 December 2022 regarding the repairs and chased this again on 12 January 2023. The resident requested another call-back for a different matter on 20 January 2023 and he chased this again on 1 February 2023. He made a third call-back request on 16 February 2023, and he chased this on 13 March 2023 and again on 20 March 2023. The insufficient response from the landlord would have understandably added frustration to the resident.
  7. There was an occasion where the resident could not provide access to the property so the landlord could not complete the repairs it had scheduled. This was a kitchen repair scheduled for 14 December 2022 which it could not complete because operatives could not safely access the area as it was not clear of belongings. However, it is unclear whether the resident was aware of this appointment because of the incorrect contact details held on its systems.
  8. The landlord has poor record keeping in relation to its repairs. While it is evident that it could not complete many repairs due to a lack of access, its repair records did not accurately reflect this to show what happened. The repair logs showed when it raised jobs, the target dates and when it completed or cancelled the job. However, it did not record when operatives could not gain access or if it had successfully completed the repairs. It instead wrongly labelled all jobs as ‘completed’ when it had not yet carried out the repairs.
  9. The landlord’s poor record keeping also resulted in it providing incorrect information within its complaint responses to the resident. The resident had complained about its handling of 2 leaks. The landlord addressed the first leak on the same day it was reported on 24 May 2022 which was appropriate. It then addressed the second leak on the same day it was reported on 11 July 2022.
  10. The repair records showed that the landlord could not gain access for a follow-up appointment on 14 July 2022 and that it cancelled a further job booked for 1 August 2022. However, the landlord’s final complaint response stated that it attended on 1 August 2022 and repaired a waste pipe under the sink. From the landlord’s records, it is unclear what happened on this date as it recorded a cancelled job but told the resident it had attended and repaired the leak. To add further confusion, the landlord also confirmed to this Service that it had cancelled the job for 1 August 2022.
  11. It is difficult to assess the time taken to complete the repairs because of the landlord’s poor record keeping. The landlord said in its final complaint response that it had completed various repairs to the windows, plasterwork, front door and the 2 reports of leaks. As the landlord logged the repairs as completed after each visit, regardless of whether it gained access or not, it is difficult to assess whether it met its repair timescales.
  12. In addition, the landlord’s repair records did not capture all the repairs reported. The first repair record related to plastering was from 16 November 2022 where it contacted the resident to arrange an appointment. It is understood that the landlord completed plastering works on 10 February 2023, and it agreed to return to paint a ceiling as a goodwill gesture. However, the landlord has not provided evidence of when it completed the repair, and it also has not provided evidence of when or how it agreed to complete the goodwill gesture.
  13. The resident also referred to an asbestos survey at the property but there is no reference to this in the records provided by the landlord.
  14. The landlord paid £30 compensation towards the delays in completing works for plastering and repairing the front door. This could be separated into £15 for each repair. It is difficult to fully assess the impact of the delay in the plastering works due to the landlord’s record keeping, but it is understood that the £15 was for its delay of nearly 3 months. The remaining £15 compensation was for a delay to the front door. It raised the door repair on 31 May 2022, and it is understood that it repaired this on 6 February 2023, over 8 months later. The landlord has not provided clear records to show when it completed the repair, but it relied on this date in its final complaint response.
  15. The offer of £30 compensation for the delays to both repairs was not sufficient to offer redress for its failings. While it apologised for the inconvenience caused by not completing the repairs sooner, it did not explain why the delay had occurred or what it would do to learn from this and prevent further delays in the future. This was not appropriate.
  16. The landlord offered a further £100 compensation towards the stress and inconvenience caused by its failure to update the contact records for the resident which resulted in various missed appointments. The landlord missed opportunities to update the resident’s contact details on 3 occasions, despite the resident raising his complaint within this period (when he mentioned the landlord had not contacted him about the appointments).
  17. It was appropriate for the landlord to outline how it would put this right going forward by providing training to its customer services team to ensure that it followed its procedures in recording contact details. This was a fair response and demonstrated its willingness to learn from the outcomes of his complaint. Its apology was also appropriate in the circumstances.
  18. While the landlord’s offer of £100 compensation was within the level of redress for failures which adversely affected the resident, as set out in the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance, its offer was on the lowest end of the level of redress recommended by this Service. The total £130 compensation offered by the landlord was not sufficient to offer redress as it was not proportionate to the failings identified within this investigation. The landlord is ordered to pay a further £400 compensation to reflect the time and trouble, and level of distress and inconvenience, that its handling of various repairs to the property would have caused to the resident.
  19. The resident has told this Service that he remained unhappy that the landlord had refused to pay any compensation for the damaged belongings caused by the 2 leaks to the property. While the Ombudsman acknowledges the distress this may have caused to the resident, the landlord acted appropriately by requesting evidence of the damaged items. As he was unable to evidence the damaged items to the landlord, it was reasonable for the landlord to find that it could not offer compensation towards this. Nevertheless, it should have signposted the resident to make a claim on his own home contents insurance or provided information on how to make a liability claim against the landlord.
  20. In addition, the resident has said that he was unable to live in the property while waiting for the landlord to complete the repairs. He has requested that the landlord reimburse him for the rent and bills paid during this time. The Ombudsman has not seen any evidence that the property was not habitable during this time and we have not made an order of redress for this accordingly.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of various repairs to the property.

Orders

  1. Within 28 calendar days of the date of this determination, the landlord is ordered to:
    1. Pay the resident the £130 compensation that it offered in its final complaint response, if it has not already done so. It should pay this directly to the resident and not the rent account.
    2. Pay the resident a further £400 compensation for its handling of various repairs to the property. It should pay this directly to the resident and not the rent account.
    3. Self-assess against the Ombudsman’s report on Knowledge and Information Management. This should be in relation to its recording of repairs, including how it records missed and refused appointments so that it clearly reflects what happened rather than marking the jobs as completed. It should provide a copy of the self-assessment to this Service.
  2. The landlord should reply to this Service with evidence of compliance with these orders within the timescale set out above.