Southend-on-Sea City Council (202215902)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202215902

Southend-on-Sea City Council

17 October 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

The complaint is about the landlord’s:
1. Handling of window and door replacement work at the resident’s property.
2. Response to the resident’s reports of poor staff conduct.
3. Complaint handling.

Background

The resident is a secure tenant of a 3-bedroom, semi-detached house. Her tenancy started in December 2015. The landlord is an arms length management organisation (ALMO) which manages properties for the local authority.
At the time of the resident’s complaint, she lived with her 2 daughters, one of which has autism. The resident described also having her own mental health vulnerabilities which includes anxiety. The landlord’s records show it was aware of the resident’s health vulnerabilities but had no health records for any other household member.
On 2 August 2022 the resident raised dissatisfaction with the landlord. She said newly fitted windows did not fit correctly, were off centre, sloped, and relied on large packers to the side and head of the windows. She said the landlord’s contractor did not measure correctly prior to installation and the workmanship was poor. Her comments also referred to damage caused to her property by the contractor.
The resident raised a stage 1 formal complaint to the landlord on 20 October 2022. She said:
1. That she was not happy with the landlord’s progress to remedy the problems with the new windows.
2. She had waited since June 2022 and raised complaints in June and July 2022 with a member of the landlord’s staff.
3. She had “wasted 7 days off work” yet the landlord had still not put things right. She was now worried she would lose her job if she took more time off unnecessarily.
4. The landlord’s contractor had that day been rude to her autistic daughter. She said he had told the resident to “get that under control” while pointing at her child. She said she had a witness and the contractor left the property “in a huff” and refused to return.
5. She considered the contractor’s behaviour towards her disabled daughter hate and abuse and she would forward home CCTV footage to the police.
The landlord provided its stage 1 response to the resident on 1 November 2022. It said:
1. After taking into account the process and timeline of events there were lessons to learn. Particularly how the contractor surveyed the resident’s property. It said it would raise this with its contractor.
2. The contractor attended on 20 October 2022, but the resident had met them with “hostility.”
3. The first time the resident made it aware that she would like to make a complaint was on 20 October 2022.
4. It apologised for any inconvenience caused during the work.
5. It waited to hear from the resident for her availability to complete outstanding remedial work, including the replacement of a rear patio door.
The resident asked to escalate her complaint to stage 2 of the landlord’s internal complaints process (ICP) on 4 November 2022. She was unhappy that:
1. The member of staff who wrote the landlord’s stage 1 complaint response had failed to respond to her earlier complaints. She said she had raised dissatisfaction about this member of staff.
2. The landlord’s assessment said she had been hostile to the contractor. She disputed this and repeated the contractor “verbally abused” her autistic child.
3. Its stage 1 response made no reference to her concerns about damage caused by the contractor to her property.
The landlord acknowledged the resident’s stage 2 escalation request on 4 November 2022. It provided its stage 2 final response on 15 November 2022. In which, it partially upheld her complaint but offered no compensation. The landlord said it understood the resident’s frustrations with the repair delays but it could not condone her behaviour which officers had described as “antagonistic.” It apologised for the delays, said it had identified learning and training, and proposed to complete the work, directly supervised by a senior member of staff. It asked for evidence of damage to her property for it to make a judgement on this issue.
Between November 2022 to January 2023 the resident and landlord continued to correspond as she remained dissatisfied with its response. The landlord issued a second stage 2 response on 25 January 2023. In which it offered £800 compensation (£100 for poor service quality and communication, £500 for the damage to internal decoration, and £200 for complaint handling failures). It attended on 16 February 2023 where it considered it completed snagging work to the resident’s satisfaction.
The resident remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s response and brought her complaint to us. She felt the landlord had failed to consider the full cost of the damage to her property’s decoration, flooring, and furniture. She said the landlord’s workmanship remained poor and she “simply wanted her home put back to the standard it was before the landlord started the window replacement work.”

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

We note from the resident’s correspondence that she expressed concern that the landlord’s handling of her window replacement and complaint affected her mental health and wellbeing. She also considered the landlord’s failures affected the security of her employment. She considered it should provide her with compensation for loss of earnings. We do not doubt these comments or the distress this situation may have caused.
Although we are an alternative dispute resolution service, we are unable to prove legal liability. This includes whether a landlord’s actions or lack of action have had a detrimental impact on a resident’s health or personal finances. Nor can we calculate or award damages. Therefore, we are unable to consider any personal injury aspects of the resident’s complaint. A court or insurer must make an assessment of liability in such matters. The resident may wish to seek independent legal advice if she wants to pursue a claim for damages for any adverse effect on her health or finances.
We also note the resident’s said she reported an alleged incident of verbal abuse of her autistic daughter to the police. Allegations of hate or discrimination are serious legal complaints which require a decision by a court of law. Given the nature of this alleged incident, this matter falls outside of our expertise. Therefore, it was appropriate for the resident to notify the police. The resident may wish to seek legal advice if she wants to pursue her concerns further using equalities legislation or speak to The Equality Advisory and Support Service (EASS) for guidance. However, we can look at whether the landlord responded appropriately to the resident’s allegations of misconduct by its staff.
Within the resident’s correspondence to us, she said she had made a subject access request (SAR) to the landlord. In which, she considered the landlord had failed to demonstrate maintaining accurate records of her communication. Furthermore, she said it failed to provide all information requested. We are unable to investigate complaints concerning the landlord’s handling of data and its response to the resident’s SAR. Therefore, this matter will not form part of this investigation. The resident may wish to seek guidance on this matter from the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO).
In reaching a decision about the resident’s complaint, we consider whether the landlord has kept to the law, followed proper procedure and good practice and acted in a reasonable way. Our duty is to determine the complaint by reference to what is, in our findings, fair in all the circumstances of the case. Where we identify failure by a landlord, we can consider the resulting distress and inconvenience.

Handling of window and door replacement work at the resident’s property

Neither party disputes that the replacement of the resident’s windows and doors formed part of the landlord’s planned maintenance upgrade programme. The landlord also accepts that its contractor’s initial survey failed to correctly assess or measure the resident’s property prior to its first attempted installation in June 2022. Therefore, it accepts the installation took too long, causing the resident time, trouble, distress, and inconvenience.
The resident says she took time off work in June, July, and August 2022 for the planned and rearranged work. Due to the contractor’s failure to measure correctly, she described the replacement windows not fitting at all. As such, she says:
1. The contractor left a window temporarily boarded up. The solution was to fit windows manufactured for another property while it remade the resident’s windows.
2. She lived with temporary windows, which the contractor insisted she could neither attach window coverings to, nor remove the protective plastic covering from as they were for another property. The resident says she had no privacy for 4 to 6 weeks during this time and did not feel secure at night.
3. The contractor damaged her paintwork, flooring, furniture, bed, and left large cracks around the windows.
4. The doors to her shed were narrower preventing her removing larger items. She said there had been no prior consultation to explain this design may be necessary.
5. The contractor’s workmanship was poor and she felt “threatened” when she tried to point this out.
6. Due to the repeat failures with the installation, her employer had put her on a warning due to the time she had been unavailable for work. She said this reduced her earnings and increased her anxiety in fear of losing her job. She considered this avoidable and a direct result of the landlord’s failures.
While we recognise the resident’s concerns, we are unable to assess or award damages for loss of earnings. As previously explained, this is a matter for a court or tribunal service. That said, it is unreasonable that the contractors failures caused such disruption and delays. Its failures to measure, manufacture, and install works correctly first time affected her availability for work. This would understandably have caused her distress and inconvenience.
In August 2022 the resident described to the landlord how the contractor caused damage to her property. She said the windows were neither central nor level and required large packers to install them. She said the operatives dismissed her concerns and “made her feel stupid.” She said she simply pointed out that the windows fitted in 1987 had been straight and level. She also said she was able to measure the alignment differences for herself and raised this to the operatives.
The resident described overhearing the operatives’ call to their supervisor to raise her concerns. She says she heard the supervisor say, “just put them in, as she won’t notice.” It is therefore reasonable that the resident says she challenged this decision and behaviour. She accepts she was passionate in her communication as she was anxious, trying to protect her home, and standing up to multiple operatives. She says she felt threatened and disputes ever being hostile or antagonistic.
While we are unable to determine what exactly happened during these discussions, it is reasonable for a resident to raise concerns about the quality of workmanship in their home. It is reasonable to expect a landlord to take such concerns seriously and make every effort to investigate, resolve, and or manage a resident’s expectations. In this case, there is evidence the landlord completed a post works inspection in August 2022. In which it identified lessons for it to learn from and a list of snagging repairs for it to address. However, the resident says she continued to remain dissatisfied.
While both parties refer to photographic evidence of the resident’s reported concerns, neither has supplied us with access to the appropriate files. It has therefore affected our ability to accurately assess this issue. That said, we would only be able to consider the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident. Any claim for damages would require a decision by a court or insurer. In this case, we have seen no evidence that the landlord considered the resident’s reports, nor did it provide her with its liability insurance details.
The landlord did not provide us with any policy documents relating to its compensation procedure. However, we obtained evidence of a policy first dated February 2018, amended July 2023 from the landlord’s website. It is therefore reasonable to determine that the landlord had a procedure in place at the time of the resident’s complaint.
Section 5 of the landlord’s compensation policy and procedure document explains when it will refer claims to its insurers. Furthermore, it says if damage occurred due to the actions of its contractors, it would refer the resident to the contractor’s insurers. The policy we viewed showed the landlord should have considered these procedures when the resident reported damage to her property and personal possessions. It is therefore unclear why we have found no evidence of the landlord referring to this or providing the resident with the appropriate insurance details. That it did not do this, demonstrates a failure to follow its own policy and procedures.
The resident does not dispute the landlord completed a post works inspection in August 2022. However, she says work to replace a patio door remained outstanding and she was not satisfied with its attempts to make good the poor workmanship. She says damaged caused to her property and possessions reduced her enjoyment of the property.
There is evidence that she continued to chase the landlord to complete the work between August to October 2022. This was not reasonable and led to her making a complaint. This caused her further time, trouble, distress, and inconvenience as she tried to progress matters. While there is evidence the landlord chased its contractors for updates, it was evident that it was doing so repeatedly. This did not demonstrate the landlord effectively monitoring its contractors performance and lead to its delays completing the resident’s work.
The landlord does not dispute that it took photographs of the resident’s property and reported damage. It is therefore unclear why the resident had to chase the landlord for its assessment and investigation between October to December 2022. Furthermore, in December 2022 there is evidence the landlord asked the resident to supply photographs. To which she informed it “there were many” and she had repeatedly asked how it would like them sent. Given it had met with the resident in August 2022 and taken its own photographs, the landlord’s actions did not demonstrate effective monitoring or record keeping of the resident’s complaint at this stage.
Given the identified communication failures and delays, it was reasonable that the landlord revisited its stage 2 final response in January 2023 and offered £600 compensation for this complaint point. That said, while we encourage the landlord to revisit its complaints, we have to consider that it made its compensation offer 2 months after its stage 2 final response. In such circumstances, our outcome guidance is clear that a finding of reasonable redress cannot therefore be determined.
When there has been an admission of failure, as is the case here, our role is to assess whether the landlord offered proportionate redress. In situations, of maladministration, our guidance on remedies recommends that a compensation payment should be £100 to £600 to put things right.
Although we note that the resident’s valuation on the damage caused to her property and possessions exceeds £600, we find this meets the expectations of our remedies guidance for distress and inconvenience. The resident would need to raise and insurance claim for an investigation into her reports of damage to her property and possessions.

Response to the resident’s reports of poor staff conduct

We will not form a view on whether the staff member’s actions themselves were appropriate. Instead, it is our role to find whether the landlord adequately investigated and responded to the resident’s complaint. We will consider whether it took proportionate action based on the information available to it. For staff conduct complaints, landlords should carry out an investigation. This may include conducting interviews and gathering evidence from all parties, to make an informed decision based on its findings.
The resident says she first expressed dissatisfaction about how the landlord’s member of staff had responded to her attempted complaints on 2 August 2022. It was therefore reasonable that she questioned the landlord’s decision to assign her stage 1 complaint in October 2022 to that member of staff.
While the landlord’s policies are silent on how it will treat such situations, it would be reasonable to have expected it to have considered her concerns. Had it done so, it may have assigned the complaint to an independent member of staff and offered the resident assurance that it would investigate her complaint thoroughly.
The landlord’s stage 1 response failed to demonstrate completing a thorough investigation. By saying “the first time you made me aware that you would like to make a complaint was on the 20 October” emphasised this failure. Given there is evidence that she raised dissatisfaction on 2 August 2022, the landlord should have been able to access this information and considered it accordingly. The resident felt there had been bias in the landlord’s approach and it had failed to effectively investigate her concerns.
The resident raised additional concerns on 20 October 2022. In which she referred to the landlord’s contractor verbally abusing her autistic daughter. Given her description of the incident, it was appropriate that she says she reported it to the police.
The landlord provided it stage 2 response on 15 November 2022. In which it referred to “various representatives” had viewed the resident’s conduct “antagonistic.” It said it could not condone this behaviour. While we note the landlord recognised how events may have affected the resident and her response to them, it is unclear how it reached its findings.
Although the landlord has supplied interview notes from a meeting with its own member of staff, the date which this took place is unclear. The summary of the interview includes dates which are beyond the landlord’s stage 2 final response of 15 November 2022. It is therefore unclear whether this meeting actually took place before or after it provided its stage 2 final response.
Furthermore, while it is reasonable to have expected the resident to have presented the CCTV evidence to the landlord, we note the landlord did not receive a police incident number or ask her for copies of the CCTV recordings. It also failed to demonstrate interviewing its contractor’s staff. Given the nature of the alleged incident and its own records of her health vulnerabilities, it was unreasonable for the landlord not to demonstrate a thorough investigation of her concerns. Simply concluding that there were “very conflicting versions of events” without seeking evidence from all parties concerned, was not reasonable in the circumstances.
The resident told us that she accepted that she had been “passionate” and at times “loud” in her communication. She said this was partly due to her anxiety and of being “made to feel stupid” over many months by the landlord and its contractor. She described being alone in her home, voicing her concerns to multiple operatives. Each who failed to accept her concerns or offer any apology for the damage caused to her home.
While it is not possible for us to determine what took place during these conversations, it is reasonable to have expected the landlord to demonstrate a thorough investigation. There is some evidence it interviewed its own member of staff at some stage. Yet, it is unclear whether this only took place after she continued to express dissatisfaction following the landlord’s stage 2 final response. Furthermore, we have seen no evidence that the landlord asked its contractor to investigate the reports, nor did it meet with the resident to discuss her version of events.
Overall, we recognise that without evidence, such as the reported CCTV, the incidents reported by the resident would be difficult to prove. However, the landlord retains overall responsibility for the actions of its staff and contractors. It has failed to demonstrate it thoroughly investigated matters with all parties concerned or that it gave due regard to the resident’s recorded health vulnerabilities. That it did not do so, did not treat the resident’s concerns fairly and amounts to service failure.

Complaint handling

The Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code) 1 April 2022 required landlords to acknowledge a complaint within 5 days. Also, for landlord’s to respond to stage 1 and stage 2 complaints within 10 and 20 working days, respectively. In accordance with its relevant complaints policy, the landlord committed to the expectations of the Code.
Paragraph 5.5 of the landlord’s complaints policy and procedures recognises that a complaint is an expression of dissatisfaction, however made, about the standard of service, actions, or lack of action by the organisation, its own staff, or those acting on its behalf, affecting an individual resident or a group of residents. This is in line with the expectations of Paragraph 1.2 of the Code.
The landlord recorded the resident’s stage 1 complaint on 20 October 2022. While the resident says she made attempts to raise a complaint to a particular member of the landlord’s staff between June to July 2022, we have been unable to identify evidence of this.
That said, there is evidence on 2 August 2022 where she clearly expressed dissatisfaction. It is therefore unclear why the landlord did not treat this report as a formal complaint. That it did not, demonstrated a failure to meet the expectations of its complaints policy. This caused her time and trouble repeating her concerns to progress matters.
The landlord’s evidence file to us contains an example of a blank stage 1 acknowledgement template letter. However, we have been unable to identify that it sent the resident any formal acknowledgement of her complaint. The landlord should have provided this within 5 days and by 27 October 2022. That it did not, demonstrates a complaint handling failure.
The landlord provided its stage 1 response on 1 November 2022. Given it recorded the complaint as of 20 October 2022, this was within its 10 working day response timescale as set out in its complaints policy. While we could consider this appropriate, it remains clear that the resident had waited from at least 2 August 2022 for the landlord to formally investigate her complaint.
Furthermore, given there is evidence that she tried to complain prior to October 2022, it is unclear why the landlord assigned her complaint to a particular member of staff. She expressed dissatisfaction how the landlord’s member of staff had previously responded to her concerns. That it did not consider this, left the resident feeling there had been no independent investigation of the matters raised. This did nothing to improve the landlord and resident relationship.
The resident asked to escalate her complaint to stage 2 of the landlord’s ICP on 4 November 2022. The landlord should therefore have sent an acknowledgement by 11 November 2022 and a stage 2 final response by 18 November 2022. It was therefore appropriate that the landlord met both of these expected response timescales.
The landlord’s stage 2 response on 15 November 2022 accepted it had communicated poorly with the resident. It accepted it had failed to meet the standards it expected of itself and identified training to prevent similar failures happening again. That said, while it partially upheld the resident’s complaint, it made no offer of redress at this stage to put things right.
We note that the landlord issued a supplementary stage 2 response on 23 January 2023, 49 working days after its final response letter. In which, it revisited the question of compensation, offering the resident £200 for its complaint handling failures.
Although we acknowledge its decision to take this action, it failed to adequately assess the appropriate level of redress within its 2-stage ICP. The Ombudsman’s outcome guidance is clear that a finding of reasonable redress cannot therefore be determined under such circumstances.
Given the failures identified, including the landlord’s failure to correctly recognise the resident’s dissatisfaction, and the subsequent delays to investigate her complaint, we find maladministration. We order the landlord to pay its offer of £200 if it has not already paid it. This is in line with the remedies guidance available to us when there was a failure that adversely affected a resident.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration with the landlord’s handling of window and door replacement work at the resident’s property.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure with the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of poor staff conduct.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration with the landlord’s complaint handling.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

We order the landlord to take the following action within 4 weeks of the date of this report. The landlord must provide us with evidence that it has complied with these orders:
1. Pay the resident £900 compensation. The landlord can deduct £800 offered in its supplementary stage 2 response, if already paid. The compensation is made up of:
  1. £600 for the time, trouble, distress, and inconvenience caused by the landlord’s handling of window and door replacement work at the resident’s property.
  2. £100 for the distress and inconvenience caused by the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of poor staff conduct.
  3. £200 for the time, trouble, distress, and inconvenience caused by the landlord’s complaint handling.
Within 6 weeks of this report, the landlord should arrange, at the resident’s convenience, an independent inspection of the replaced windows and doors. The report should assess the resident’s concerns that the windows are not level and not central. The landlord should discuss the findings of the report with the resident and agree an action plan for any remedial work recommended. The landlord is to provide a copy of the findings and any action plan to us.

Recommendations

The landlord should ensure that its health and vulnerability records accurately reflect the resident’s household circumstances.