Stroud District Council (202207879)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202207879

Stroud District Council

31 August 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. This complaint is about the landlord’s handling of responsive repairs to the resident’s property.
2. The Housing Ombudsman has also decided to investigate the landlord’s communication and complaint handling in this case.

Background

3. The resident is a secure tenant of the landlord. The property is a 2-bedroom semi-detached house with a rear-facing kitchen. Attached to the rear of the house, near the kitchen, is a small outhouse.
4. The resident has told us that they suffer from osteoarthritis and breathing difficulties.
5. The resident first reported a problem with the outhouse in July 2019. The resident’s neighbour in the adjoining building had recently undertaken some building work. The landlord noted in October 2019 that the neighbour’s building works had caused damage to the property. The extension built by the neighbour also extended over the roof of the property. According to later reports a repair was put in place at this time.
6. In March 2021, the resident asked the landlord to repair the outhouse roof again. There was also an issue with the bathroom plumbing. The resident said in their request that 5 contractors had been to inspect the property, but no work had been done. According to the landlord’s notes, the repairs were not done at this time as the resident had an ongoing Right to Buy application. That application was closed in April 2021. However, the landlord noted that it appeared active on their system for some time after this. In May 2021, the landlord contacted its contractor to determine what work was required. There is no indication the landlord asked the contractor to complete this work.
7. The resident raised a complaint on 7 December 2021. They told the landlord there was a problem with the outhouse and a damp wall for nearly 2 years at this point. A number of inspectors had visited but they never return to complete the work. The landlord acknowledged the complaint the following day and said it would aim to respond within 20 working days.
8. The landlord visited the property on 5 January 2022 and confirmed the extent of existing issues:
   1. Damp/wet patches on the kitchen wall, which were worse in wet weather.
   2. Pooling water on the outhouse roof.
   3. Kitchen renewal.
   4. Relocation of a soil and vent pipe.
9. The landlord wrote to the resident on 21 January 2022 and upheld the complaint. It apologised for the delay in properly inspecting the resident’s home and completing necessary works. By way of next steps, the landlord said:
   1. It would seek planning enforcement in respect of the neighbour’s extension.
   2. It would arrange for a new inspection of the roof, with an intention to complete any repairs it could in the meantime.
   3. The kitchen itself was due for renewal in 2022/23. It would contact the relevant team in respect of this.
   4. It would complete repairs to the window and door in the outhouse.
10. In April 2022, the resident chased the promised works. They said that more inspectors and contractors had shown up, but no work had yet been started. The landlord promised an update the following week, although it is unclear if this happened. On 21 June 2022, the resident asked to escalate their complaint to stage 2 of the complaints process.
11. The landlord responded to the resident on 22 July 2022. In its final response it said:
    1. It could not confirm if an inspection had taken place on the roof.
    2. It accepted that it made mistakes in how it provided information. It put this down partly to its internal systems.
    3. The kitchen was expected to be renewed soon, but delays were possible due to resourcing issues.
    4. It upheld the complaint due to delay.
12. The resident escalated their complaint to this service on 9 December 2022. They said that:
    1. The repairs had not been completed.
    2. Someone visited on 5 October 2022 to measure the kitchen, but never returned.
    3. The back door was rotting.
    4. Plaster fragments and a sticky substance were appearing on the kitchen work surfaces.
13. The resident continued to chase the repairs. According to the evidence we have, most of the repairs were completed in May 2023. The resident advised that the external wall repair has not been completed. We have seen a survey which confirms that the wall was in too poor a condition to paint in June 2023 and needed repair. The resident states that this cannot go ahead as there is a separate, electrical issue which is preventing the landlord from erecting scaffolding. The resident has also told us that, due to the external damage, the interior of the kitchen is again becoming damp. As of the date of this report there is no indication of when the repairs are likely to be completed.

Assessment and findings

Repairs

14. The landlord has a repairs and planned maintenance policy which sets out expectations for different categories of repair. According to that policy, repairs of the nature reported by the resident should be completed within 28 days of the report.
15. Based on the evidence provided by the landlord, it identified a potential issue when it inspected the property in 2019. The neighbour’s extension works may have been causing ongoing damage to the property due to the overhanging nature of the roof. The landlord attempted to raise this as a planning issue at the time but was told it was a civil matter, rather than a planning issue. It is not clear anything else was done about this. For clarity, this service cannot investigate complaints in respect of planning issues as they are outside our jurisdiction. However, we can consider whether the landlord was reasonably aware of an issue, and based on the planning case, we believe it was.
16. According to later notes the repair to the roof in 2019 was of a temporary nature. It would have been reasonable for the landlord to tell the resident this was the case and when it expected to be able to complete a permanent repair of the roof. This would have helped manage expectations and ensure future repair requests were linked to the same job.
17. The resident raised further repair requests up until November 2021. The landlord has noted that these repair requests were not being actioned because its system showed that the resident had an active Right to Buy application. Generally, repairs are not completed during the Right to Buy process unless of an emergency nature. However, the resident said they withdrew their application in April 2021 and therefore later repair requests should have been actioned as normal. The landlord has acknowledged some failings in its IT systems which mean that up to date information is not available to all staff. While this explains the issue, it does not provide justification. The landlord has said it is looking to correct these issues in a future project.
18. On receiving the complaint, the landlord took positive steps to understand the exact nature of the issues. It completed an inspection of the property and set out its next steps when it responded to the complaint. However, there is no evidence that these steps were actually put in motion. Where a landlord promises an inspection or repair, it should ensure it is able to follow through. Failure to do this is likely to damage the landlord-tenant relationship.
19. The resident chased repairs over the next 6 months before they escalated their complaint. Based on the evidence, the landlord completed some inspections around March or April 2022. The landlord does not seem to have a clear record of what inspections were completed, or what works were recommended. After one inspection in April 2022, it was noted that some of the external wall would need to be “hacked off and rendered…with a water proofer added”. It was identified in this inspection that not doing this repair may cause more problems later.
20. The landlord’s records indicate a significant amount of confusion around the repairs and the kitchen renewal. Different repair jobs were being completed by different contractors and the landlord seemed to struggle to plan these. In emails provided by the landlord from February 2023 there were conflicting notes as to whether the roof was being repaired and who was doing it. An appointment was cancelled for 6 March 2023 due to this, but there is no evidence suggesting a new appointment was arranged. There were also still notes visible at this time that said the resident was undergoing a Right to Buy application despite this closing nearly 2 years previous. As late as May 2023, staff at the landlord were still asking contractors whether there was a plan of works for the property. It was not until June 2023 that the landlord acknowledged a need to repair the external wall before painting, despite this being highlighted in April 2022.
21. Taking all this into account, the landlord has not treated the resident fairly and is likely to have caused a considerable amount of distress and inconvenience. While we acknowledge the landlord’s acceptance of its failings, and its apology, we do not think they have done enough to put things right. It has not considered compensation in line the Complaint Handling Code and the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance. As a result, there has been a finding of maladministration. We consider the failings to have had a significant impact on the resident over an extended period of time and therefore we have awarded compensation on the higher end of the scale for maladministration.
22. The landlord may now not be able to complete the repairs in a reasonable timeframe, due to the extent of the damage. The landlord will need to consider this when carrying out the orders set out below.

Complaint handling and communication

23. The landlord’s complaint policy states that it aims to resolve complaints within 10 working days for each of stage 1 and stage 2. This is in line with the Complaint Handling Code but differs from what the resident was told during the complaint. It is possible that an older version of the complaint policy was being used at the time.
24. The landlord also has a compensation policy which sets out various circumstances in which it may award financial redress to a tenant. This includes things like home loss payments, or damage to goods. Included in the “discretionary compensation” section of the policy is considerations to make where there has been a failure in the landlord’s repair service. This includes:
    1. Loss of amenities.
    2. Service failure.
    3. Missed appointments.
    4. Damage to property.
    5. Distress, time, and trouble.
25. During the resident’s complaint, they repeatedly set out that they did not understand what was going on with the repairs. Multiple contractors visited the property but the resident was never told when work would commence. This reflects the confusion apparent in the repair notes. When the resident rang the landlord, IT issues meant it could not give a full and proper update in respect of the repairs.
26. The landlord responded to the complaint swiftly and effectively. However, the promises it made in its stage 1 response were not carried out until over a year later. In that time, the resident was not provided with a plan of works or any indication when the works would complete. The delay in providing this plan, led to the resident escalating the complaint both internally, and to this service.
27. Despite having a compensation policy there is no evidence that the landlord considered making any award. It should have considered the distress caused by the failings it apologised for, and the length of time the resident had been reporting the issues. Taking these failings into consideration, we have found maladministration in the landlord’s actions.

Determination

28. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there has been maladministration in the landlord’s handling of responsive repairs at the resident’s property. This is because it failed to carry out the repairs in a reasonable timeframe.
29. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there has been maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaints and communication. This is because it failed to effectively communicate with the resident and did not consider compensation when resolving the complaint.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

30. The landlord is hereby ordered to pay £800 compensation, broken down as:
    1. £700 for distress and inconvenience caused by the delay in completing repairs to the resident’s property.
    2. £100 for distress and inconvenience caused by failures in communication and complaint handling.
31. The landlord must write to the resident with a plan to complete the outstanding repairs to the external wall. If the repairs are unlikely to be completed in a reasonable amount of time, and the property could become hazardous to live in, the landlord must consider decanting the resident.
32. The landlord must provide evidence of complying with the above orders within 4 weeks of the date of this report.

Recommendations

33. The landlord has told us that it is undertaking a project to improve systems access across the organisation, allowing its staff to have better access to information for residents. It should consider whether it is able to put in place any immediate process changes to prevent the types of communications failings seen in this complaint.
34. The landlord should consider reviewing its repairs policy to make allowance for extended or more complex repair work.
    1. This should include instances where:
       1. multiple contractors are required
       2. work is likely to take place over several months
       3. work is reliant on other activity taking place, eg highway repairs.
    2. The policy should ensure that residents have access to information about the repairs, such as:
       4. what works is expected to be necessary
       5. how long it should take
       6. whether inspections are required first
       7. who is managing the work for the landlord
       8. what contractors are involved.