Tamworth Borough Council (202128565)

Back to Top

A picture containing logo Description automatically generated

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202128565

Tamworth Borough Council

08 December 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 concerns how the landlord handled the resident’s request for compensation following missed contractor appointments.

Background

  1. The resident is a secure tenant of the landlord, which is a local authority. The property is a flat.
  2. On 15 February 2021, the resident wrote to the landlord to inform it of several outstanding repairs in the property.  The resident described issues with the heating, sink drainage, the kitchen flooring, the guttering and the external cladding. The landlord replied on 16 February 2021. It informed the resident that internal sink drainage was his responsibility to resolve and that it had raised work orders for the other issues. The landlord confirmed an appointment for 10 March 2021 for the cladding and stated that its contractor would contact the resident to arrange appointments for the other work.
  3. The resident wrote to the landlord on 16 March 2021 and requested to raise a formal complaint into how the appointments had been conducted. He described the elements of the complaint as:
    1. The contractor had not turned up for appointments at the agreed time. The 10 March 2021 appointment did not go ahead as the operative turned up at the wrong time, knocked on the door once, and by the time the resident was able to answer had already left
    2. He experienced poor customer service and was given conflicting information when he called the landlord’s repairs line to chase up the status of repairs.
    3. The contractor had informed the resident that it had called him several times and had left voicemail messages. However, the resident had no record of any calls or messages on his telephone.
    4. He had taken time off work to ensure that he was available for all the booked appointments.
  4. In its complaint responses, the landlord:
    1. Explained that several attempts were made to contact the resident on 10 March 2021 before the appointment was cancelled due to no access.
    2. Apologised for the disruption that the missed appointments had caused and confirmed that the work had now been completed.
    3. Informed the resident that it had arranged a single point-of-contact to provide him with updates while the rest of the work remained outstanding.
    4. Described the process its contractors take for no access, stating that if it does not receive an answer from tenant, the contractor is expected to call them and if the call is not answered the contractor is expected to send a text or an email. The landlord also stated that it had contacted its contractors and subcontractors to remind them of this process.
  5. Further correspondence occurred between the resident and landlord in January 2022 and March 2022 following a request from the resident to be compensated for loss of earning for two appointments that did not go ahead, which he estimated as being £70 for each day. The landlord investigated the resident’s request and determined that the contractor had the incorrect contact details recorded for the resident, which had resulted in the resident not receiving any telephone calls or texts from the contractor. However, the landlord stood by its position set out in its formal complaint responses and declined the resident’s compensation request.
  6. In referring the case to this Service, the resident described the outstanding issues of the complaint as the landlord did not properly follow its procedures which resulted in two appointments being missed. As a resolution to the complaint, the resident requested to be paid compensation to cover the loss of earning for the two failed appointments.
  7. When providing evidence to this service for the case, the landlord stated that it had conducted a director-level review of the complaint. The landlord noted that its final response had stated that the resident’s experience did not reflect the service standard it aims to provide and that in light of this, it should have also offered compensation as part of its complaint process. The landlord then stated that it was willing to offer the resident £160 compensation, which it broke down as £30 for each of the two missed appointments and £100 for the inconvenience that this caused to the resident.

Assessment and findings

Relevant policies and procedures

  1. Section 1.4 of the tenancy agreement sets out the landlord’s repair responsibilities. This states that the landlord is obligated to “keep the structure and the exterior of the premises in repair”.  Section 3 of the tenancy agreement sets out the tenant’s responsibilities. Section 3.2.12 relates to access and, in part, states that a tenant “must allow the [landlord’s] employees or contractors access at all reasonable hours of the day to inspect the condition of the premises or to carry out repairs and other works to the premises or adjoining property. We will normally give you 24 hours notice but immediate access may be required in an emergency”.

How the landlord handled the resident’s request for compensation following missed contractor appointments

  1. Once it was informed by the resident of the outstanding repairs, the landlord had a duty to respond to the matter in line with the obligations set out in the tenancy agreement and its published policies and procedures. It is not in dispute that two appointments did not go ahead due to no access. In its complaint responses, the landlord apologised for the inconvenience that this caused, assigned a point-of-contact to work with the resident to ensure that appointments for the remaining repairs were successful, and reminded its contractors of the procedure to go through to attempt to contact a tenant when there was no answer at the door.
  2. However, it was not until February 2022 (nine months after the stage two complaint response was sent) that the landlord discovered that its contractor had the wrong contact details for the resident, and not until September 2022 that the landlord accepted that it’s stage two complaint response should have included a compensation offer in recognition of the poor service the resident had received.
  3. Therefore, there has been service failure in how the landlord handled the resident’s complaint and request for compensation. In his request to escalate the complaint to stage two sent on 19 April 2021, the resident informed the landlord that he had no record of any calls, texts, or voicemail messages from the contractor on his mobile telephone. However, this element was not addressed by the landlord within the complaints process. By not properly investigating all elements of the complaints during the complaint process, the landlord missed an opportunity to explain the circumstances as to how the appointments failed due to the incorrect telephone number being held by the contractor, to award reasonable financial redress for its admitted service failures, and to provide a resolution to the complaint that was acceptable to the resident.
  4. The compensation offer made by the landlord when it submitted its evidence is broadly in line with the Ombudsman’s own remedies guidance (which is available on our website). This recommends a payment of £100 to £600 for considerable service failure or maladministration which adversely affected the complainant, but there was no permanent impact. However, it would also be appropriate for the landlord to pay additional compensation to recognise the delays caused by it not properly investigating all the elements of the complaint at the time the complaint was open, and the added inconvenience that this caused the resident. Therefore, it is ordered that the landlord pay the resident £310 compensation, broken down as:
    1. £60 for the two missed appointments
    2. £100 for the delays and inconvenience that the missed appointments caused the resident.
    3. £150 for the nine-month delay in determining that its contractor did not hold the correct contact information for the resident, and the additional delay and inconvenience that this caused.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure by the landlord in respect of how it handled the resident’s request for compensation following missed contractor appointments. 

Orders

  1. For the service failure and reasons set out above, the landlord is ordered to pay to the resident £310. This  payment is inclusive of the £160 previously offered by the landlord. This payment should be made within four weeks of the date of this report. The landlord should update this Service when payment has been made.