Southend-on-Sea Borough Council (202009843)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202009843

Southend-on-Sea Borough Council

10 May 2022


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 management organisation’s handling of the resident’s complaint about repairs to the gutters in her property.

Background

  1. The resident is a leaseholder of the landlord who is a local authority. The landlord uses an arm’s length management organisation (ALMO) to manage the property the resident lives in. It is responsible for complaints, for which the landlord plays no direct role.
  2. The resident reported an issue (to the ALMO) about gutters in August 2020. She subsequently raised a complaint to the ALMO in September about delays resolving issues with the communal gutters, and the general handling of repairs by contractors over the recent years. The ALMO acknowledged the complaint on 9 September, saying it would respond within 10 working days. The contractors also wrote to the resident around the same time, explaining and apologising for the issues and delays she had experienced. They explained they would complete the gutter repairs on 2 October.
  3. The ALMO issued its complaint response in October. It apologised for the resident’s experiences, explained why delays with its contractors had been occurring, and said it understood the gutter issue to have now been resolved. The resident wrote back disputing its explanations. The ALMO acknowledged the resident’s comments, explained how Covid had impacted on repair timeframes, and apologised again for the inconvenience caused. Nothing in the ALMO’s correspondence indicated that it was an official complaint response, and the ALMO did not provide information about escalating the complaint if the resident remained dissatisfied.
  4. The resident raised a complaint to the landlord in December 2020 about the ALMO’s handling of her complaint. Given that the ALMO was responsible for complaints, the landlord was meant to pass the complaint to it to respond, but did not do so until April 2021 (following involvement from this Service).
  5. An internal email from the ALMO to the landlord on 7 April 2021 states that the resident’s September 2020 complaint was treated as an enquiry (rather than a complaint). Another internal email from the contractors in April 2021 states that the contractors had offered £80 compensation to the resident for delayed repairs.
  6. After discussing the complaint with the resident in April 2021, the ALMO sent her what it labelled as its stage one complaint response to her December 2020 complaint. It acknowledged the resident’s frustration, apologised for its contractors not meeting their appointment obligations, and apologised for not providing appropriate explanations and information about the repairs in its October 2020 response. It explained in detail the repair actions taken by the contractors, and noted the £80 compensation the contractors had offered. It explained that feedback had been given to them about their actions, and provided escalation details if the resident remained dissatisfied.
  7. The resident asked to escalate her complaint. She gave her account of the relevant repair appointments, and said her complaint was about the standard of communication by both the ALMO and landlord. She explained the distress and inconvenience the repairs and poor communication had caused her, and asked for £400 compensation.
  8. The ALMO sent its second complaint response in May 2020. It reiterated its earlier explanations and apologies, and explained how the delay responding to her December 2020 complaint had occurred. It offered £50 compensation, but explained why it would not agree to the amount the resident sought. It provided information for bringing her complaint to this Service if she remained dissatisfied.
  9. In the resident’s correspondence with this Service, she set out that she was dissatisfied with both the landlord and ALMO, and how they had liaised with each other. She said the offer of compensation was insufficient.

Assessment and findings

  1. As explained above, complaints from the landlord’s tenants and leaseholders are managed and responded to by the ALMO. The ALMO has a three stage complaints process, starting with an informal complaint stage, followed by a formal complaint stage, and an escalated complaint stage. The landlord plays no role in the complaints process, and any dissatisfaction with the ALMO’s actions or complaint handling would need to be escalated to this Service, not to the landlord. Because of that, only the ALMO’s actions are considered in this report, not the landlord’s.
  2. The ALMO defines an informal complaint as “Expressions of minor dissatisfaction or minor failure in service which can be quickly rectified. Informal complaints either do not warrant a full investigation, or the customer specifically states they do not wish to take the matter any further through the complaints’ procedure.”
  3. It is not apparent why the ALMO treated the resident’s complaint in September 2020 as an informal one. The resident was emphatic about her dissatisfaction with both the recent gutter issues, and with what she saw as long-standing problems with the repairs contractor over a lengthy period. The initial complaint cannot reasonably be described as an “expression of minor dissatisfaction” as defined in the ALMO’s procedures, and nothing in the ALMO’s acknowledgement or ultimate response made clear that it had treated the complaint informally. The ALMO’s response did not address the issues raised by the resident, apart from apologising for the repair delays and giving a broad explanation that Covid was affecting timeframes. Crucially, the ALMO did not explain how the resident could escalate her complaint if she remained dissatisfied. Overall, the ALMO’s handling of the resident’s complaint at the initial stage, when compared against the basic expectations set out in the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code, was very poor.
  4. Upon receiving the first response to her complainant the resident immediately emailed back explaining why she disputed the explanations it contained. The ALMO’s only response was to send a very brief email apologising again. It should have been clear to the ALMO that the resident remained dissatisfied, and her complaint should have been escalated to the next stage of the complaint process at that point, or, at the very least, her escalation options explained.
  5. Given that her dissatisfaction had not been addressed, and she had not been signposted to the appropriate escalation channel, it is understandable that the resident approached the landlord for assistance. The ALMO was not responsible for the delay that resulted after the landlord received the resident’s complaint, but if it had acted in line with good complaint handling practice initially, the resident should not have needed to approach the landlord.
  6. The ALMO’s first formal complaint response was thorough, and reasonably addressed the resident’s concerns about the delayed communal repairs — explaining what actions the contractors had taken, along with dates and times.
  7. In the ALMO’s stage two complaint response it explained how it was separate to the landlord, and what should have happened when the landlord received the resident’s complaint. It offered £50 compensation in light of the inconvenience the situation had caused her. Like the previous complaint response, the second stage was generally thorough in addressing the resident’s repair concerns, but at no stage did the ALMO recognise its poor handling of the resident’s very first complaint, which, if it had been dealt with in a reasonable fashion, would most likely not have dragged on and needed as much effort by the resident to resolve as it ultimately did. The compensation and apologies offered by the resident were not sufficient to remedy that initial poor handling.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure in respect of the complaint.

Orders

  1. In light of the inconvenience and obvious frustration caused to the resident by the initial poor complaint handling, the ALMO is ordered to:
    1. Within four week of this report, review the case and its complaint procedures to ensure that complaints are not inappropriately treated informally, and that clear and comprehensive escalation information is provided to any complainant.
    2. Within four weeks, pay the resident £175 compensation. This payment is in addition to the amounts already offered by the ALMO (and its contractors) during the complaints process.
    3. Evidence of payment and the case/procedure review must be provided to this Service by the relevant deadlines.