Stoke-on-Trent City Council (202122682)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202122682

Stoke-on-Trent City Council

27 February 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 concerns raised about the condition of the windows, doors, roof and guttering.
2. The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

3. The resident holds a secure tenancy with the landlord in a 2-bedroom house. He has physical health conditions which the landlord is aware of.
4. On 4 November 2020 the resident reported to the landlord that the seals on the windows ‘had gone’ and asked it to thermally insulate them. The landlord inspected the windows on 8 December 2020 and found no faults with them. The resident reported problems with his windows again in September 2021.
5. On 13 January 2022 the resident reported wet patches on the bedroom ceiling asserting that water ingress was coming from the roof. The landlord inspected the property on 1 February 2022. It found that it would need a tower at the front and rear elevation to check the felt on the eaves of the roof. The next day the resident raised a formal complaint. As well as raising concerns about the length of time the landlord had taken to insulate the property, he stated that the doors inside his property did not fit properly and that his windows were draughty.
6. On 28 January 2022 the landlord responded at stage 1 of its complaints process. It said that the windows were installed in 1995 and were not due to be replaced until 2035. It added that following an assessment of his windows they found them to be in good order. In addition, it explained that it would be developing programs to replace the ‘panel’ at the front of the property with a more insulated version, but it could not give a timescale for this.
7. On 3 February 2022 the resident complained about the lack of communication from the landlord about his outstanding issues. He stated that there was no insulation behind the front windows and the double glazing was poor. He also added that there was a leak from the roof and problems with the interior doors. On 10 February 2022 the landlord inspected the roof and found that it was in good condition. However, it found possible ‘cold spotting’ in the bedroom and bathroom. It requested a fixed scaffold to vent through the roof and to renew the rear fascia to stop the gutters from leaking. On 1 March 2022, the landlord carried out a temporary repair to the guttering.
8. On 22 March 2022 following contact from the resident this Service wrote to the landlord and asked it to formally respond to the resident’s reports regarding concerns about his windows, doors, and fireplace. The resident also complained to the landlord on 24 and 31 March 2022. He stated that he was unhappy his door was not being renewed and that he had not been given a date for the repairs to his roof. He questioned why the landlord’s original complaint response did not cover the issues with his windows and doors. He added that his windows were still not working as they should, and the internal doors did not fit or shut properly. In respect of the leak, he had not received an update on what the landlord intended to do to resolve this.
9. On 13 April 2022 the landlord responded at stage 1 of its complaints process. It did not uphold his complaint. It said that the gutters and fascia were repaired on 1 March 2022, and it found no issues with the roof or loft. It added that it had received no repair reports regarding his internal doors since 2020 and asked the resident to report any outstanding repairs through its repairs line. The same day the resident escalated his complaint. In summary, he disputed that the landlord had repaired the guttering and added that it had not properly investigated the leak. He added that all his internal doors did not fit properly and that his windows were broken.
10. On 17 May 2022 the landlord issued its final response. It partially upheld his complaint. In summary, it said:
    1. That on 1 March 2022 it re-fixed the guttering to the fascia board so that it was now functional.
    2. That when it inspected the loft space on 1 March 2022 it found no evidence of water ingress via the roof.
    3. The windows were UPVC double-glazed and fully functional and would not be due for replacement until 2035.
    4. That it could arrange an appointment to check the doors, but they were not due for replacement until 2050.
    5. It did not represent value for money to renew major components and that items will be completed via its planned works.
    6. It would undertake a retrofit assessment within the next few weeks in response to his concerns about his home’s energy rating. This would entail a full survey of the property to ascertain what improvements could be made.
11. The resident referred his complaint to this Service in February 2023. He said that the landlord told him that the guttering would be permanently repaired. He added that the windows were faulty, and there was clear evidence of a leak from his roof. As an outcome he wanted the outstanding jobs to be completed.
12. In November 2023 the landlord stated that its retrofit assessment in June 2022 found that his internal doors ‘required maintenance’ and apologised for not picking this up at the time of the report. It committed to adjusting the internal doors and replacing all the windows. It also agreed to carry out a new retrofit assessment with a view to completing any necessary improvement works. In addition, it offered £350 compensation for the delays in resolving the issues and the inconvenience and anxiety caused.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s response to concerns raised about the condition of the roof, guttering, windows and doors

13. When investigating a complaint, the Ombudsman applies its Dispute Resolution Principles. These are high level good practice guidance developed from the Ombudsman’s experience of resolving disputes, for use by everyone involved in the complaints process. There are three principles driving effective dispute resolution:

     a.   Be fair – treat people fairly and follow fair processes.

2. Put things right.
3. Learn from outcomes. 

14. The Ombudsman must first consider whether a failing on the part of the landlord occurred, and if so, whether this led to any adverse effect or detriment to the resident. If it is found that a failing did lead to an adverse effect, the investigation will then consider whether the landlord has taken enough action to ‘put things right’ and ‘learn from outcomes’.
15. The landlord’s repairs policy states that it aims to provide a service that meets its resident’s needs. It adds that it will ensure the reporting of repairs is accessible to residents and it provides various ways to do so, including directly to officers. It also states that each repair will be assessed by the attending technician and adds that the prioritisation of repairs will reflect the vulnerabilities of the resident. It states that it will aim to complete day-to-day repairs within a mutually agreed timescale. In any case, this Service would expect the landlord to attend to a repair within a reasonable timescale.

Windows

16. The landlord’s repairs log indicated that it inspected the resident’s windows in December 2020 and found them to be in working order. However, in September 2021 its internal records indicated that the resident’s MP reported further issues with his windows and stated that it would need to inspect the condition of them. Yet it failed to do so. Instead, it relied on its previous findings in December 2020. This was inappropriate. The landlord should have carried out another inspection within a reasonable timescale. This would have provided it with an opportunity to assess if any remedial work was needed, as outlined in its policy.
17. The resident reported issues with his windows again in January 2022, where he stated that they were draughty. He added that it was pointless reporting repairs as they never get done. The landlord’s record showed that it consistently failed to raise the windows as a responsive repair. Instead, the reports were treated as window replacement requests that would be dealt with as part of its future planned improvement works. While it may have been the case that the resident wanted the windows replaced, the landlord missed several opportunities to inspect the windows and diagnose any repairs. This would have caused distress and inconvenience to the resident who have likely felt that his concerns were being ignored.
18. The landlord’s records showed that it was not until the end of February 2022 that it acknowledged that the windows should be treated as a responsive repair. While its records suggested that it attempted to access the property, there are no repair records to reconcile this, which may indicate issues with the landlord’s record keeping. A recommendation has been made below in respect of this.
19. In any case, in April 2022 the landlord’s internal records stated that it was not going to look at the windows and that it would await the outcome of the retrofit assessment. This was, again, inappropriate. The outcome of this assessment should not have prevented the landlord from inspecting the windows and assessing if any repairs were needed. Particularly as the landlord was aware that this was an issue that the resident consistently raised throughout.
20. It took the landlord until 16 May 2022, to agree to survey the windows and carry out a retrofit assessment. This was over 8 months after this issue was raised. This was a considerable and avoidable delay that would have caused further distress and inconvenience to the resident.
21. The landlord’s final response stated the windows were UPVC double glazed and ‘fully functional’. However, this Service has seen no meaningful evidence during the period of the complaint to support this conclusion. Furthermore, the retrofit assessment of 15 June 2022 concluded that many of the windows in the resident’s property were in poor condition. While this Service notes that the landlord agreed to replace all his windows in November 2023, it is reasonable to conclude that had the landlord inspected and surveyed the windows at the earliest stage it is likely that his windows would have been repaired or replaced much sooner.

Doors

22. In the resident’s January 2022 complaint, he said that the doors inside his property did not fit. The landlord failed to respond to these concerns, despite its internal records indicating that this was a responsive repair issue that it acknowledged needed to be dealt with. This resident repeated these concerns at the end of March 2022 and added the doors did not shut properly and were not fit for purpose. However, there was no evidence that the landlord inspected the doors.
23. Furthermore, the landlord’s final response put the onus back on the resident by asking him to report the doors again to its repairs team. This was unreasonable. The landlord should have logged the repair and arranged a mutually convenient time to inspect. Its failure to do so demonstrated a lack of accessibility and showed that the landlord had not considered the resident’s previous reports or his vulnerabilities. This was contrary to its policy and would have likely caused distress and inconvenience to the resident.
24. In November 2023 the landlord stated that its retrofit assessment of June 2022 identified that the internal doors ‘required maintenance’ and it agreed to adjust them to ensure that they closed tightly. It is therefore reasonable to conclude that the resident was left with faulty internal doors for at least 10 months. Again, these delays were avoidable. The landlord should have inspected the doors upon the resident’s initial report. Had it done so it is likely these repairs would have been completed much sooner. This was a significant failing on the part of the landlord.

Roof and guttering

25. On 13 January 2022 the resident reported water ingress from his roof. The landlord attended within a reasonable timescale and arranged for a tower to be erected to check the felt on the roof, which it did so promptly on 10 February 2022. It found that the roof and felt were in good condition but identified possible ‘cold spotting’ in the bedroom. It subsequently advised that it needed to erect a fixed scaffold to ‘vent through the roof’ and that the fascia to the rear ‘could do with renewing’.
26. On 1 March 2022 the landlord carried out a temporary repair to the guttering. It added that it would need to further inspect the eves in the back bedroom. However, its records suggested that it did not renew the fascia or vent through the roof, despite its 10 February 2022 inspection suggesting that this was needed. This led to the resident chasing the landlord for an update at the end of March 2022. This demonstrated that the landlord failed to update the resident on its findings and whether it was planning to take any further action.
27. Furthermore, while its repair records indicated that further work was needed to the roof as well as permanent repair to the guttering, the landlord’s formal responses suggested that the work carried out on 1 March 2022 was sufficient. It is therefore unclear if the roof and guttering have been adequately repaired. Overall, the landlord’s handling of this matter was unsatisfactory. It failed to keep the resident updated and it was understandable that the resident would have believed that further work was needed on the roof and guttering. This would have left the resident feeling worried that the landlord had not investigated these issues properly and carried out an effective and lasting repair.

Conclusion

28. In conclusion the landlord’s handling of concerns raised about the condition of the windows, doors, roof, and guttering was poor. It failed to treat the resident’s concerns about the windows and doors as responsive repairs. Instead, the landlord relied heavily on treating the resident’s reports as planned improvement requests. This was unnecessary and inevitably led to considerable delays in inspecting and resolving the issues raised. It failed to inspect the windows and doors within a reasonable timescale leaving the resident’s needs unmet. Furthermore, it did not prioritise the work despite the resident’s known vulnerabilities. Overall, the landlord failed to act in line with policy.
29. While this Service acknowledges that the landlord offered £350 compensation and agreed to replace the windows and adjust the doors in November 2023, it is considered that the offer of compensation was not proportionate to the failings identified in this report. Given these failings, this Service has determined that there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of concerns raised about the condition of the windows, doors, roof, and guttering. In line with this Service’s Remedies Guidance, awards of up to £1,000 compensation should be made where the Ombudsman has found failure which significantly impacted the resident. In view of this, orders are made below for remedy.

The landlord’s complaint handling

30. The landlord’s complaints procedure states that it will respond to complaints at stage 2 within 20 working days. The Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (‘The Code’) states that landlords must address all points raised in the complaint and provide clear reasons for any decisions. It adds that if all or part of the complaint is not resolved to the resident’s satisfaction at stage 1 it must be progressed to stage 2 of the landlord’s procedure.
31. In the resident’s January 2022 complaint, he stated that all his internal doors did not fit. While the landlord responded to his complaint within its set timescales it failed to address the concerns about his doors. The landlord failed to act in line with the ‘Code’ in this regard. This would have caused frustration to the resident who would have likely felt that his concerns were being ignored.
32. The landlord’s internal records indicated that it spoke with the resident on at least 2 occasions in February 2022. On these occasions, he expressed concerns about the lack of communication from the landlord to his outstanding issues, including problems with his windows, interior doors and a leak from the roof. The landlord should have therefore concluded that the complaint was not resolved to the resident’s satisfaction and escalated the complaint accordingly. Yet it failed to do so. These were missed opportunities to escalate the resident’s complaint.
33. This led to the resident contacting this Service for assistance in March 2022. The Ombudsman subsequently wrote to the landlord on 22 March 2022 and asked it to respond to the resident’s complaint about the replacement of the windows, doors, and a gas fireplace. The landlord wrote to the resident 2 days later and informed him that as it was unaware of the issues with the fireplace, it would open a new stage 1 complaint in respect of this, his doors, and his roof. This was inappropriate.
34. The resident’s original complaint clearly mentioned his internal doors. The landlord should have therefore escalated this issue to stage 2 of its complaints process. Moreover, on 31 March 2022, the resident stated that he was unhappy with the landlord’s January 2022 stage 1 response and explained that his windows were not working as they should. However, the landlord failed to escalate his complaint, instead, it issued a new stage 1 response which failed to address the concerns about his windows. It was not until 17 May 2022 that the resident received a stage 2 final response to all the issues raised. This was over 5 months after the resident’s initial complaint.
35. The landlord’s complaint handling was unsatisfactory. It failed to address all the points raised in its original stage 1 response and its decision to issue two stage 1 responses was unnecessary. Furthermore, the landlord failed to progress the resident’s initial complaint to stage 2 which led to avoidable delays in the landlord issuing its final response. This delayed getting matters resolved for the resident and would have caused him distress and inconvenience. Overall, the landlord failed to act in line with its procedure and the ‘Code’. This amounts to maladministration and orders are made below for remedy.

Determination

36. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in respect of its handling of concerns raised about the condition of the windows, doors, roof and guttering.
37. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in respect of its complaint handling.

Orders

38. The landlord must do the following within the next four weeks:
    1. Provide a written apology for the failures identified in this report.
    2. Pay the resident compensation of £1,050 comprised of:
       1. £350 as offered by the landlord in its November 2023 letter to the resident.
       2. A further £550 for the significant distress and inconvenience caused by its handling of concerns raised about the condition of the windows, doors, roof and guttering.
       3. £150 for the distress and inconvenience caused by its complaint handling.
    3. Inspect the property and satisfy itself that it has carried out sufficient work to repair the roof and guttering. The landlord must share a copy of its findings and any resulting action plan with the Ombudsman and resident.
    4. Provide evidence that it has replaced all the windows and adjusted the internal doors as agreed in its November 2023 letter to the resident. If this has not yet happened the landlord must provide a timescale for the completion of these works to the resident and this Service.
    5. Review the complaint handling in this case, with reference to the failings identified in this report, to determine what actions have been/will be taken to prevent a recurrence of these. The landlord should write to the Ombudsman with the outcome of this review.
39. The landlord should provide this Service with evidence of compliance with these orders within the timescale set out above.

Recommendation

40. The landlord should review its repairs record keeping ensuring repair inspections are properly logged and accurately reflect what works have been carried out. The landlord should review the Ombudsman’s Spotlight report on Knowledge and Information Management (available at: KIM-report-v2-100523.pdf (housing-ombudsman.org.uk).