Southampton City Council (202215115)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202215115

Southampton City Council

24 July 2023

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 the resident’s:

a.     request for their windows and external doors to be replaced;

b.     reports of their roof leaking.

Jurisdiction

2. What we can and cannot consider is called the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. This is governed by the Housing Ombudsman Scheme. When a complaint is brought to the Ombudsman, we must consider all the circumstances of the case as there are sometimes reasons why a complaint will not be investigated.
3. After carefully considering all the evidence, this Service cannot investigate issues concerning the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of their roof leaking. This is in accordance with paragraph 42(a) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, which states that the Ombudsman will not consider matters that “are made prior to having exhausted a member’s [landlord’s] complaints procedure”. The resident may be able to bring a separate complaint about this issue to the Ombudsman in future if it completes the landlord’s internal complaints procedure and they are unhappy with the outcome.

Background

4. The complainants are a couple who have both been actively involved in liaising with their landlord in relation to this complaint. For clarity, they are both referred to as ‘the resident’ throughout this report.
5. The resident is a secure tenant of a property owned by the landlord.
6. On 28 September 2022, the resident emailed their local councillor about the windows and external doors of their home. They said they had spoken with the landlord’s repairs team and been told that the windows and doors should have been replaced in 2020. They said that they understood the Covid-19 pandemic had caused this to be delayed. However, they were concerned that they had not been contacted by the landlord about arranging replacements in the two years since. The resident explained the performance issues and disrepair they were experiencing with their windows and external doors and how they do not meet current regulations. The resident also said they would like to be sent information on when their home was last insulated as they did not believe it had been within the last 30 years. The councillor forwarded the resident’s email to the landlord on the same day and asked for its assistance with the resident’s requests.
7. The landlord emailed the resident on 30 September 2022. It stated that the resident would be contacted soon to arrange a convenient date for the landlord to carry out a survey of the windows and doors. The landlord wanted to establish the exact condition of these items so they could be appropriately prioritised within its replacement programme. It said that the estimated life expectancy of the windows is 35 years, not 20 years as stated by the resident. On the same day, the resident confirmed to the landlord that one of its employees had visited their home that morning and assessed the windows and doors. They had been told that a report would be available soon.
8. On 4 October 2022, the landlord emailed the resident with feedback from the survey conducted on 30 September 2022. It stated that the condition of both the doors and windows had been assessed as “fair” for their age. It confirmed that it would be scheduling their replacement for the next financial year. It also confirmed it had reviewed the property’s energy performance on the energy performance certificate (EPC) register. The property scored D (66) with the average property in England scoring D (60), meaning the resident’s home was more energy efficient than the average home in England. However, it had noted that the property had only 150mm of loft insulation when the current standard is 300mm. It asked the resident to confirm if they would like a loft insulation upgrade.
9. The resident replied to the landlord on the same day. They confirmed they would like to have the loft insulation upgraded. They had noted that their EPC had expired. On 5 October 2022, the landlord instructed for a new EPC to be completed. On 7 October 2022, the new EPC was confirmed as completed.
10. On 12 October 2022, the resident formally complained to the landlord about the condition of their windows and doors. On 24 October 2022, the landlord issued a stage one complaint response. It confirmed to the resident that the replacement of their windows had since been approved. It would not be replacing the doors yet, but it encouraged the resident to report any identified repairs for them using the appropriate channel to do so. It confirmed that an order had been raised to inspect the loft insulation and replace it if required. It said that the three wasp nests mentioned in the resident’s complaint would be removed during this process.
11. On 26 October 2022, the resident contacted the landlord and indicated they were unhappy with its stage one complaint response. They were particularly unhappy with the landlord refusing to replace their external doors. They confirmed the wasp nests had been removed.
12. On 16 November 2022, the landlord issued its stage two complaint response. It confirmed that it had investigated the issue of the replacement of the resident’s external doors and had found the doors to be “serviceable”, i.e. useable and adequately fulfilling their functions. It confirmed that one door was attached to a window and so would be replaced with the windows as it formed part of a unit. It said it had a rolling programme for the improvement or replacement of doors and windows and explained how the programme worked. The loft insulation upgrade had been due to take place on 14 November 2022, but two large televisions had been discovered in the loft that needed removing first. This was scheduled to be done on 16 November 2022. It stated that the legislation quoted by the resident did not apply and it was not upholding their complaint.
13. On 21 November 2022, the resident’s windows, and one door, were replaced. On 22 November 2022, the resident’s loft insulation upgrade was completed. The resident asked the Ombudsman to investigate. The landlord has confirmed to this Service that the resident has since paid for one of the remaining two doors to be replaced. It has stated that as the door was considered in working order that the landlord would not reimburse for this, however the resident could apply for reimbursement if they moved home.

Assessment and findings

14. The landlord has a legal responsibility to carry out most repairs required in the resident’s home as the resident is a secure tenant. Repairs which the landlord is responsible for should be carried out within a “reasonable” timeframe, in line with the landlord’s repairs policy. The landlord has explained it has an annual budget dedicated to the renewal of windows and doors of its properties. It has a system to decide how to prioritise requests for window and door replacements.
15. The landlord’s repair timescales good practice guide sets out the timescale targets for different types of repair. It states that it aims to complete emergency repairs within four hours, whereas the target for planned minor works is “up to 60 days”. Cyclical renewal programmes, such as the door and window replacement programme, are not subject to the same timescale targets as responsive repairs. This is because these are major projects which require significant planning and separate budgets.
16. The resident contacted their local councillor following a conversation with the landlord’s repairs team. The resident had been told that their windows and doors should have been replaced in 2020. Evidence provided by the landlord mentions it had a large backlog in its windows and doors replacement programme as a result of the lockdown restrictions put in place during the Covid-19 pandemic. The landlord had a backlog of 3,500 households on the waiting list. The resident understood the delay to their window and door replacements had been outside of the landlord’s control but they now felt concerned that they hadn’t been contacted since the pandemic. The landlord should consider how it could have improved its communications to the resident about the backlog and when they could expect their windows and doors to be replaced.
17. The landlord received multiple service requests upon and following the councillor’s enquiry on behalf of the resident on 28 September 2022.Within less than two months of receiving the first request for the windows and doors to be replaced, the landlord had completed all of the works required of it, with the exception of two doors that it had decided not to immediately replace. The resident’s windows and doors were surveyed within two days of the landlord receiving the request. This Service has not identified any concerns with the landlord’s handling of the service requests or the resident’s complaint. None of the identified works were subject to delay and were completed within the landlord’s published target timescales for minor planned works.
18. The resident’s complaint to the Ombudsman centres on the landlord’s refusal to replace two of the resident’s external doors until a later date. The landlord had explained to the resident its reasoning for its decision to not immediately replace two of their doors. The doors had been assessed by qualified operatives and found to be in fair working order. It therefore could not justify prioritising the replacement of the resident’s doors over other doors also waiting as part of the backlog. This was a reasonable explanation for its decision because the landlord had a significant number of households waiting for door replacements and a system for working out which doors to prioritise. The landlord needed to prioritise doors that were not in fair working order and could not be repaired in the meantime. The landlord signposted the resident to its repairs team for any repairs the doors needed to maintain them prior to replacement, which was an appropriate response.
19. In its stage two complaint response, the landlord mentioned that it does not have unlimited funds available to replace all windows and doors in the properties it owns. This is a relevant consideration that the landlord was within its rights to refer to. The landlord should replace windows and doors which have reached the end of their lifespan and/or cannot be economically repaired. However, the landlord is entitled to repair rather than replace the doors if they can be repaired and made functional again. The landlord was entitled to rely on the opinions of its qualified operatives who assessed the doors and determined that they did not need to be replaced. The Ombudsman has not seen any evidence to show this opinion was incorrect and the doors could not be successfully repaired.
20. The resident had also highlighted their concerns that the doors did not meet current regulations. The landlord accepted that door regulations had been updated, but it explained to the resident that these new regulations did not apply retrospectively. This meant that all new door installations should meet the current regulations, but it did not mean that all existing doors installed prior to the current regulations had to be modified or replaced in order to meet them. This was a reasonable response from the landlord as it explained its position clearly.
21. The landlord renewed the resident’s property’s EPC within three days of being made aware that it had expired. This was an appropriate response, however the resident should not have had to inform the landlord that their property’s EPC had expired nearly a year previously. The landlord should consider how it can ensure its EPC database is kept up to date in future.

Determination

22. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s requests for their windows and external doors to be replaced.

Recommendations

23. The landlord should consider how it can improve communications to those residents affected by any backlogs or delays in its building improvement or renewal programmes. It could consider a centralised source of information (such as on its website) that its customer service teams can signpost and explain to affected residents.
24. The landlord should carry out an exercise designed to identify any properties that do not currently have an up to date EPC and arrange to have them renewed as soon as possible.