Read our new Spotlight report on repairs and maintenance – repairing trust.

Stoke-on-Trent City Council (202233104)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202233104

Stoke-on-Trent City Council

30 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

  1. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of remedial works and cleaning following the installation of cavity wall insulation at the resident’s property.
  2. This Service has also investigated the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

  1. The resident is a secure tenant of the landlord. The property is a 3 bedroom house. The resident is an older person. She has mobility issues and she lives in the property alone.
  2. The landlord engaged the services of a company who specialise in home energy efficiency surveys and manage the installation of insulation measures, such as cavity wall insulation. Their domestic energy assessors and surveyors project manage the insulation installations from start to finish using specialist sub-contractors to carry out the work.
  3. Following a survey of the resident’s property on 30 November 2022, cavity wall insulation was installed on 16 January 2023 by specialist sub-contractors. During the installation, the insulation fibres were inadvertently blown inside the resident’s property. This caused a layer of fibres to settle on her carpets, surfaces, and personal belongings.
  4. The resident contacted the landlord on 17 January 2023 to make a complaint. However, she was told to contact the project management company directly. She was then told by the project management company that she must deal with the sub-contractor responsible for the installation. The resident made a formal complaint to the landlord on 6 March 2023, as the sub-contractor had not resolved the issue to her satisfaction.
  5. The landlord passed the resident’s complaint to the project management company. The project management company sent the resident a stage 1 complaint response on 17 March 2023. They apologised for any distress and inconvenience caused by the insulation works and agreed that the sub-contractors would return to clean the vents from inside the property. They also agreed that the sub-contractors would provide cleaning items so that the resident’s son could clean the inside of the property. In addition, it was agreed that the sub-contractors would offer the resident compensation as a gesture of goodwill.
  6. Following escalation of the resident’s complaint to stage 2, the landlord provided a stage 2 response on 1 June 2023. It said it had arranged an appointment for an industrial clean to take place on 2 June 2023. It also offered the resident £400 compensation for the distress and inconvenience caused.
  7. The resident referred her complaint to the Ombudsman on 12 June 2023 as she was dissatisfied with the landlord’s response.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

  1. The Equality Act 2010 provides a legislative framework to protect the rights of individuals with protected characteristics from unfair treatment. Under the Act, the landlord has a legal duty to make reasonable adjustments where there is a provision, criterion or practice which puts a disabled person at a substantial disadvantage in relation to a relevant matter in comparison with persons who are not disabled. Although this Service cannot find that a landlord has breached the Equality Act, we can decide whether a landlord has had due regard to its duties under the Equality Act.
  2. The resident has expressed concerns regarding the impact the situation has had on her health. This Service is unable to draw conclusions on the causation of, or liability for, impact on health and wellbeing. Claims for personal injury must be decided by a court, who can consider medical evidence and make legally binding findings. Where there has been a failing by the landlord, this Service may consider any general distress and inconvenience which the situation may have caused the resident.
  3. The resident has raised, as part of her complaint, concerns that the landlord’s public liability insurer has not offered sufficient compensation for the damage caused to her carpets. Under paragraph 42(j) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme (“the Scheme”), the Ombudsman may not consider complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion fall properly within the jurisdiction of another Ombudsman, regulator or complaint-handling body.
  4. Therefore, we are unable to consider this matter, as this is not under the remit of this Service. The resident is advised to contact the Financial Ombudsman Service (FOS) for further information and advice on taking this element of her complaint further.

The landlord’s handling of required remedial works and cleaning following the installation of cavity wall insulation

  1. The installation of cavity wall insulation took place on 16 January 2023. It is unclear from the information provided what caused the insulation fibres to enter the resident’s home. The sub-contractors reported that there was a hole in the living room wall that they were unaware of. The resident said the sub-contractors had failed to seal the internal vents within the property before starting the installation. However, it is not within the remit of this Service to determine cause, liability or negligence in relation to damage to the resident’s possessions. Our role is to establish whether the landlord’s response was in line with any legal obligations, procedure, or good practice and whether its response was reasonable and fair in all the circumstances of the case.
  2. The resident contacted the landlord on 17 January 2023 to make a complaint about the incident that had occurred during the insulation works. She told this Service that the landlord directed her to the project management company, and they then passed her over to the sub-contractors. The sub-contractors offered the resident gift vouchers as a gesture of good will for the inconvenience caused. Although the amount of compensation offered is unclear from the evidence provided.
  3. The resident’s legal relationship, through the existence of the tenancy agreement, is with the landlord. She has no legal relationship with either the project management company or the sub-contractors. This means that it was ultimately the responsibility of the landlord to liaise with the resident, investigate her concerns in relation to its contractors, and take remedial action where appropriate. Therefore, it was inappropriate of the landlord to pass the resident over to its contractors (a third party) without taking any responsibility for what had happened or making attempts to put things right.
  4. The evidence suggests that the landlord was not involved in any of the actions taken by the project management company, or the sub-contractors between the date of the incident on 16 January 2023, and the 6 March 2023 (the date the stage 1 complaint was logged). This was unreasonable and unfair to the resident who was left to deal with the full clean-up of her property without the assistance of the landlord. This was particularly unfair as the resident is an older person with mobility issues who relies on a stairlift to access the upper floor of her property. This information would have been available to the landlord, so that it could adapt its approach in the specific circumstances, but it was not necessarily available to its contractors.
  5. In any event, under the Equality Act 2010 (the Act), the landlord has a legal duty to make reasonable adjustments where there is a provision, criterion or practice which puts a disabled person at a substantial disadvantage in relation to a relevant matter in comparison with persons who are not disabled. As the resident is disabled due to her mobility issues, the landlord should have recognised the need to make reasonable adjustments to its usual processes. It did not demonstrate that it considered the additional detrimental effect of having to clean up the insulation fibres on the resident due to her mobility issues. There is no evidence that, with knowledge of the resident’s protected characteristics, it considered whether a decant was required whilst the clean-up was undertaken. Therefore, the landlord has not demonstrated that it had due regard to its duties under the Act, and its actions were inappropriate in the circumstances.
  6. The landlord raised a formal complaint following feedback from the resident on 6 March 2023. She asked the landlord, who was responsible for the vents being left open whilst the insulation work was carried out. The landlord passed the complaint over to its project management company for investigation. The project management company spoke to the sub-contractors who confirmed that they were aware of the incident. The sub-contractors said they sent a team to rectify the issues and clean the resident’s property straight away. They agreed that they would visit the property again to make an assessment and arrange for their on-call cleaning team to attend if necessary.
  7. The project management company sent the resident a stage 1 complaint response on 14 March 2023. This action will be considered separately under the complaint handling section of this report. The project management company apologised for any distress and inconvenience caused following the insulation works. They confirmed that they had agreed with the resident’s son that they would ask the sub-contractors to return and clean the vents from the inside of the property to ensure the dust would be kept to a minimum. They also agreed that the sub-contractors would provide all the necessary cleaning items so that the resident’s son could clean the property himself (at his request). They also confirmed that the sub-contractors had offered to provide compensation for the inconvenience and distress caused as a gesture of goodwill. Although the amount of compensation offered is unclear from the evidence provided.
  8. The resident escalated her complaint to stage 2 on 30 March 2023 as her home was still full of the insulation fibres. She said she had spent £200 of her own money trying to rectify the issue. She said she had been living with, and breathing in, the fibres in her home for around 10 weeks. She said she was unable to have her family and grandchildren over to visit because of her concerns about the fibres and the state of her property.
  9. The sub-contractors attended the resident’s property with a cleaning contractor on or around 16 May 2023. However, due to a separate issue, there was no hot water available at the time. The clean was re-arranged to take place on 25 May 2023.
  10. The sub-contractor attended the resident’s property on 23 May 2023. They fixed a hole in the wall, vacuumed, and checked the vents. It would be reasonable to assume, from the evidence provided, that this was the hole that may have allowed the insulation fibres to enter the resident’s property during the insulation works. It is unclear, from the evidence provided, why it took 4 months from the date of the incident for the hole to be repaired. This was unreasonable in the circumstances, as it was likely that the fibres would continue to enter the resident’s property whilst the hole was still present.
  11. The landlord sent the resident a stage 2 complaint response on 1 June 2023. It confirmed that it had arranged for industrial cleaners to carry out a deep clean of the resident’s home on 2 June 2023. It confirmed that the sub-contractors had already cleaned the resident’s property but it was not to her satisfaction. It said it had arranged for an external cleaning company to clean the property on 19 May 2023 but the clean had to be cancelled as there was no water available. It said a further clean had been arranged for 25/26 May 2023. However, the sub-contractors had informed it that when the cleaners attended on 25 May 2023, as arranged, the resident was not happy that they were domestic cleaners, and therefore turned them away. It said it had considered the costs the resident had incurred in relation to a blocked sink, the purchase of cleaning products, and the distress and inconvenience caused and it offered £400 compensation as a gesture of goodwill. It agreed that it, and its contractors, did not offer the expected level of service whilst undertaking the insulation works.
  12. It should be noted that the resident disputes that she turned the cleaners away on 25 May 2023. She has told this Service that the cleaners refused to clean her property as they were domestic cleaners, not industrial cleaners.
  13. Although the stage 2 response acknowledged the overall service failure in relation to the insulation works and offered the resident compensation of £400, it was not in line with the Housing Ombudsman’s Service Dispute Resolution Principles to be fair, put things right, and learn from outcomes. The response did not recognise the length of time the resident had been living with the insulation fibres throughout her home or provide any explanation as to why it had taken over 4 months to rectify the situation. It did not recognise that it should have been involved from the date the resident first reported the incident. It did not demonstrate that it understood the impact on the resident as she had to attempt to rectify the issues herself with the sub-contractor before the landlord got involved. It did not acknowledge the resident’s disability or its obligations under the Equality Act 2010 to make reasonable adjustments. The response was unempathetic and there was an element of blame placed on the resident for the delays in the clean-up taking place. It showed no learning within the stage 2 response and the amount of compensation offered did not reflect the extent of the service failures given that the resident had spent £200 on cleaning products and unblocking the sink due to the build-up of fibres.

Events following the stage 2 response

  1. The landlord carried out deep cleans to the resident’s property on 13 June 2023 and 5 October 2023. It also installed an air filtration unit within the resident’s property on 5 October 2023. The landlord also submitted a claim to its insurance team, for replacement carpets to the resident’s hall, stairs and landing. It offered the resident £150. However, as the resident did not accept the offer, it submitted the claim to its insurers for consideration. It is unclear from the evidence provided whether the resident’s claim for replacement carpets has been settled by the landlord’s insurers. The resident has told this Service that the insurers offered to clean the carpets. Although it appears, after speaking to the resident, that the matter may still be ongoing.
  2. In summary, the landlord did not have due regard to its obligations under the Equality Act 2010. It did not take responsibility or adequately investigate and respond to the resident’s concerns when she first reported the incident. It delayed unreasonably in ensuring that the hole was repaired and in arranging a deep/industrial clean. It did not recognise the impact of the situation on the resident and it failed to provide reasonable redress in the circumstances, taking into account the financial detriment caused to the resident.
  3. As a result of these failings, the level of detriment caused to the resident by the delays in removing the insulation fibres from her home, and the landlord’s failure to provide reasonable redress, the Ombudsman finds that there was maladministration by the landlord in this case.

Complaint handling

  1. The landlord operates a 2 stage complaints process. Its complaints procedure says it aims to respond to complaints at stage 1 within 10 working days. Stage 2 complaints are responded to within 20 working days.
  2. The resident attempted to raise a complaint with the landlord on 17 January 2023 following the cavity wall insulation incident. However, the landlord did not log a complaint. Instead, it passed the resident over to its contractor to deal with directly.
  3. The landlord logged a formal complaint on 6 March 2023 following feedback from the resident. The landlord acknowledged the complaint on the same day and told the resident it would look into the matter by 20 March 2023.
  4. The stage 1 complaint response was sent to the resident on 14 March 2023. This was almost 2 months from the date the resident first attempted to make a formal complaint on 17 January 2023, and outside of the timeframe of 10 working days set within the landlord’s complaints policy. In addition, the response was sent by the project management company. The response was apologetic, it accepted that sometimes “things don’t always go as planned”, and it stated that the sub-contractors would return and clean the vents and offer a gesture of goodwill. However, it was not from the landlord, it did not confirm the complaint stage or definition or provide details of how to escalate the matter to stage 2.
  5. The Housing Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code) (April 2022) says that landlords must respond to stage 1 complaints within 10 working days of the complaint being escalated. It also says that landlords must confirm in writing to the resident at the completion of stage one in clear, plain language, the complaint stage, complaint definition, the decision, the reasons for any decision made, the details of any remedy offered, the details of outstanding actions, and details of how to escalate the matter to stage 2.
  6. Therefore, as the project management company responded to the resident at stage 1 and the letter did not comply with the set requirements, the landlord did not act in accordance with the Code. This was therefore inappropriate in the circumstances.
  7. The resident escalated her complaint to stage 2 on 30 March 2023. The landlord passed the escalation request onto its relevant team on 17 April 2023. The resident contacted this Service for assistance on 26 April 2023 as she had not received a stage 2 response. This Service contacted the landlord on 3 May 2023 and asked it to respond.
  8. The landlord sent the resident a stage 2 response on 1 June 2023. This was 2 months from the date of escalation to stage 2 and outside of the timeframe of 20 working days set within the landlord’s complaints policy. The landlord did make reference to its complaint handling failures within its response. It said it did raise the resident’s concerns and the project management company responded on 14 March 2023. It also confirmed that her escalation request dated 30 March 2023 had been “overlooked”. It apologised, however, it did not recognise that the stage 1 complaint should have been logged on 17 January 2023, or that the response should have been sent by the landlord, and it did not offer reasonable redress.
  9. Given the delays at both stage 1 and stage 2 of the complaints process, the landlord did not act in accordance with its complaints policy, when responding to the resident’s complaint. This was inappropriate in the circumstances. This not only delayed a resolution to the resident’s complaint, it also delayed the resident’s ability to escalate the matter to this Service.
  10. In summary, the landlord failed to comply with the timeframes set within its complaints policy for both its stage 1 and stage 2 responses, and it failed to act in accordance with the Code. Although it recognised the delay at stage 2 within the stage 2 response, it did not acknowledge its overall failings or offer reasonable redress. As a result of these failings and the level of detriment caused to the resident by the delays, the Ombudsman finds that there was maladministration by the landlord in this case.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in its handling of required remedial works and cleaning following the installation of cavity wall insulation at the resident’s property.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in its complaint handling.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

  1. Within four weeks of the date of the report, the landlord must:
    1. Apologise to the resident in writing for the failings identified in this report.
    2. Pay the resident total compensation of £775 (the landlord can deduct from the total any amount it has already paid). This is made up of:
      1. £600 in recognition of the financial detriment, delays, distress and inconvenience caused to the resident by the landlord’s handling of remedial works and cleaning following the installation of cavity wall insulation at the resident’s property.
      2. £175 in recognition of the complaint handling failures and the time, trouble, and inconvenience caused to the resident.
    3. Pay the compensation directly to the resident.
    4. Make an appointment with the resident to carry out an inspection of the property to assess and agree what areas of the property still require cleaning to remove any remaining fibres. The landlord must provide the resident and this Service with a full schedule of works with dates for completion of the work.
  2. The landlord should reply to this Service with evidence of compliance with these orders within the timescales set out above.