Thurrock Council (202102215)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202102215

Thurrock Council

10 February 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

The complaint is about the landlord’s response to the residents reports of an insecure front door.

Background

The resident is a secure tenant of the landlord with the tenancy beginning December 2010. The property is a first floor two-bedroom flat.
The resident has a number of vulnerabilities relating to her mental health and dyslexia.

Summary of events

On 14 December 2020 the landlord installed a new front door at the resident’s property.
Between December 2020 and December 2021 the resident reported repeated damage of her front door to the police, the landlord and this service.
On 8 March 2021 the resident called her landlord and said that she had “not heard anything” following a surveyor’s visit in January 2021.
An internal email of 8 March 2021 said a visit was to be carried out to the resident on 11 March 2021.
On 24 March 2021 the landlord telephoned the resident following her request to speak to a senior manager. It said the resident raised concerns about the security of her front door and that she had been burgled. The landlord advised the resident it would “try and get the door looked at again”.
On 31 March 2021 the police contacted the landlord following their visit to the resident the day before. The police said they were “unable to get the door to lock properly”. The resident advised the police she did not want the landlord’s contractors to visit her.
Internal emails were sent on 31 March 2021 and 9 April 2021 chasing for an appointment to be confirmed for the door to be inspected.
The call log shows on 13 April 2021 a voicemail message was left for the resident “regarding repair to door”.
On 27 April 2021 the resident raised a formal complaint with the landlord regarding “the safety of her door, which was fitted unsafely, and the door handle upside down”.
The landlord acknowledged the complaint in writing to the resident on 29 April 2021. This was because it said it did not have an email address for her.
An internal email of 10 May 2021 said that access was denied for an inspection on 8 February 2021 and there were no issues identified during the inspection of 11 March 2021 other than the door “was catching”.
On 12 May 2021 the landlord sent its stage one response, it said that:
1. A new front door was installed on 14 December 2020.
2. Following the police visit to her property on 30 March 2021 arrangements were made for an inspection of the front door to be carried out on 14 April 2021. This was confirmed to the resident in a voicemail message.
3. The appointment was attended but recorded as “no access.”
4. The resident said she had changed her phone number and was not aware of the arrangements, it was therefore rescheduled for 28 April 2021.
5. During the inspection of 28 April 2021 a contractor “observed the resident attempting to lock the door in the incorrect way” and offered “to demonstrate how to lock the door correctly”. The resident declined and therefore “the contractor left site”.
6. The contractor confirmed that no remedial repairs were identified as being required.
7. It had again discussed with the contractor and reviewed completion photos taken at the time to confirm the handle was installed correctly.
8. It said it had “made attempts” to contact the resident to establish if there were any new repair issues required but was “unsuccessful” in speaking to the resident. It advised the resident to make contact if there are any repair issues she would like to discuss.
On 14 May 2021 the resident called the landlord with it noting the resident “sounded very distressed”. She confirmed the door was “currently secure” but “adamant” the door was to be replaced.
Internal email correspondences on 14 May 2021 said that:
1. This was at a stage one complaint.
2. There were no recommendations by the contractor that the door required further renewal.
3. It will “organise to reattend,” making clear that it will be an inspection for a repair not a new door.
On 9 and 10 June 2021 the landlord emailed the resident asking her to confirm any outstanding issues in order to help with its investigation.
The resident contacted her local councillor on 23 July 2021 regarding her door “being broken and unable to lock” The councillor contacted the landlord explaining the residents’ concerns and their own concerns relating to the residents “vulnerabilities” which became apparent during the conversation.
The landlord’s internal emails sent the same day said that:
1. The resident was being supported by internal and external agencies with weekly visits, now being twice weekly. Also, a further telephone call will be completed today.
2. “The door was inspected this week” and “can confirm that it does lock and it is secure”.
3. There had been no recent repair reports regarding the condition of the door.
4. An emergency works order will be raised to assess any repair that may be required.
On 3 August 2021 the landlord contacted this service saying:
1. Several attempts were made to telephone the resident at various times of the day, as requested by this service – without success. Furthermore, there was no answering phone service to leave a message.
2. Without clarification, it was not able to progress the complaint, as it could not clarify the matters the resident wished to be addressed as the door was replaced.
On 4 August 2021 the resident reported that her front door was not secure. The same day the landlord raised an emergency works order and sent an internal email saying that it contacted the resident but she “does not want anyone to secure the door”. She said that the operatives made the door “more insecure” and she would “secure the doors herself to stop mice and cats accessing the property”.
On 9 August 2021, the landlord emailed this Service advising it had approached the resident with a view to attending the property to identify if there are any faults with the door. However the resident was refusing to allow it to attend.
On 10 September 2021 the landlord emailed the resident explaining it had tried to contact her by telephone without success.
1. It said that the resident had “refused to allow them to attend” and therefore assumed there were no outstanding matters to be addressed.
2. It said it will continue to support the resident and liaise with the appropriate supporting agencies.
3. It advised the resident to contact them should she wish to raise any future concerns and directed her to contact this service should she remain unhappy.
Following contact from the resident, on 17 September 2021 this service contacted the landlord requesting it make clear its final response.
The landlord sent its final response on 23 September 2021 outlining:
1. It had been unsuccessful in clarifying the outstanding matters the resident wished to raise as a stage two complaint.
2. It had attempted to contact the resident by email and on the mobile number she provided however there was no voicemail facility.
3. It advised the resident to contact this service should she wish to escalate her complaint. This service was copied into the email.
The resident continued to contact this service between September and November 2021.
The resident contacted this service on 22 November 2021 to escalate her complaint relating to outstanding repairs to her front door. As a resolution she wanted the door and frame renewed.
The resident called this service on 5 January 2022 to advise her landlord would be installing a new front door.
On 25 January 2022 a new front door was installed at the resident’s property. This service has seen sight of a document signed by the resident confirming she was happy with the installation of the front door. However, this document was not dated.
The same day the resident made a report to the police that she had been burgled. This is evidenced by internal emails from the police which also say there was no indication to suggest third parties had been involved in the damage to the front door nor any burglary had taken place.
On 3 February 2022 an internal email was sent logging the resident’s further report of a broken door chain.
On 4 February 2022 the police confirmed by email to the landlord that there was insufficient evidence to suggest a burglary (on 25 January 2022) had taken place. The damage to the door would not have been sufficient to gain entry.
On 7 February 2022, the resident reported she was “broken into yesterday” and this was “to do with the new front door that has gaps all around the edge”.
Case notes dated 10 February 2022 said that:
1. The property was visited by the landlord who spoke to the resident, issuing her with a letter dated 26 January 2022. (It is presumed that the letter referred to in the case notes is the one dated 24 January 2022 provided to this service by the landlord; details of which are outlined below in paragraph 36).
2. It offered to read the letter to the resident who declined.
3. It offered a referral to an advocacy service, however the resident declined.
4. The resident said there were people going into her property and it explained there was insufficient evidence to support a burglary had taken place.
5. The resident stated she did not cause the damage and demonstrated the door rattled in the frame to which the landlord said this was normal.
6. The resident said the chain had been put on the wrong way to which the landlord explained the resident signed a document confirming she was happy with the installation.
7. It said the resident made reference to the gaps around the door however upon inspection there were none.
8. The resident then asked the landlord to leave.
During the above inspection of 10 February 2022 the landlord handed a letter to the resident dated 24 January 2022, saying:
1. It discussed with the resident her reports that an unknown person had been accessing her property.
2. The mobile phone footage the resident had of an incident was “not clear and unusable” and checks made with the Police showed that her reports “had been closed due to lack of evidence on every occasion”.
3. It discussed the damage to the front door and the surrounding walls, which the resident said had gaps around the frame that allowed “people to gain access” to her home.
4. It noted that there was a large hole to the lower part of the door frame which had a “piece of wood stuck in it” it said that the resident said she had done it to “secure” the front door.
5. It said that to make the resident feel safe it would install a new front door on 25 January 2022 and the tenancy management officer would remain present whilst the work is carried out.
6. It made clear that if the new front door along with any internal wall fixture/fittings incurred any damage, it would hold the resident responsible which may result in a breach of tenancy warning and cost charges.
7. It provided the resident with the terms and conditions of the tenancy.
On 10 February 2022 the resident telephoned this service following “a meeting” with her landlord. She explained she felt intimidated and that the landlord had “accused her of lying” and repairs had yet to take place.
This service wrote to the landlord on 10 February 2022 on behalf of the resident to provide details of her complaint:
1. The landlords handling of repairs to the front door.
2. Staff behaviour.
On 16 February 2022 the landlord sent its stage one response outlining the following:
1. The resident raised concerns in relation to the security of her front door and required repairs.
2. It said that it had spoken to staff involved with the handling of her case and provided its findings.
3. It explained that a works order was raised on 5 January 2022 to replace the front door.
4. A new front door was installed on 25 January 2022 following a “forced entry”.
5. It confirmed the resident had contacted it raising concerns relating to the installation location of the door chain. It confirmed to the resident the chain had been fitted correctly albeit vertically as opposed to horizontally. It said the reason for this was to ensure two solid screw fittings could be used.
6. It noted that the resident again made contact on 2 February 2022 reporting the door chain had been damaged and was no longer attached to the door.
7. A contractor visited on 3 February 2022 and replaced the door chain horizontally, further up the door frame as the existing holes were too large to allow for refixing in the same location.
8. It apologised that the resident felt the contractor was “dismissive” and said, “the operative advised it was not the intention”.
9. It said further enquiries were made as to why the chain was now installed horizontally because the fitting of the chain was the original cause of concern for the resident.
10. It explained the brackets could be fitted either vertically or horizontally depending on the width of the door sash and to ensure the fixings were located into the timber sub frame.
11. The original installation of the door chain in the vertical position allowed the optimum length of chain for opening the door. It said the contractors advised the resident that the new door chain should be fitted vertically to ensure proper fixings in the timber sub frame. However, due to the continued concerns raised by the resident whilst the operatives were on site and as per her request, the new door chain was fitted horizontally.
12. It said an inspection was carried out on 10 February 2022 to assess the overall condition of the door. It found:
  1. The thumb turn lock had been removed internally and required a new cylinder due to the spring component being missing. It said this has since been completed.
  2. There was damage to the “intumescent strip” which required replacing. An order was raised.
  3. Fireproof mastic was to be applied to the holes where the previous door chain had been fitted. An order was raised for this.
13. It directed the resident to contact this Service should she remain dissatisfied with its response.
On 7 March 2022 the landlord responded to this services’ letter of 10 February 2022. It provided responses to queries raised and medical evidence.
When the resident approached the Ombudsman she said that the door was not safe and she was being harassed by staff. She wanted the landlord to make her property secure.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of the front door not locking.

The landlord’s repair policy says that:
1. It is responsible for entrance doors and frames. Furthermore it has an established protocol which it considers for those residents that have “a mental health problem”
2. It says “The council and its partners have an overriding duty to safeguarding the health and wellbeing of vulnerable individuals”.
3. “Where damage is caused by domestic violence, hate crime or burglary – or an attempt at any of these – and the incident is reported to the police and a crime reference number is obtained, then damage to the property will usually be repaired by us”.
4. Security related repairs are considered an emergency repair to be responded to within 24 hours.
The landlord’s Adults, Housing and Health protocol says it “demonstrates the Councils commitment to partnership working, in order to safeguard the wellbeing of vulnerable people who face various types of risks within housing.”
The landlord was notified of an issue with the resident’s front door by the resident on 24 March 2021 and the police on 31 March 2021. In accordance with its policy, this should have been raised as an emergency repair and responded to within 24 hours. Internal emails of 31 March and 9 April 2021 show the landlord chased confirmation of when an inspection was to be carried out, which was not done until 14 April 2021. This was 21 days after the initial report and not in line with its repair policy.
Internal emails, third party evidence and medical evidence seen by this service demonstrate that the landlord acted in line with its policies by providing and offering support to the resident in relation to her mental health issues and liaising with appropriate external agencies. Furthermore, it demonstrated it had attempted to arrange access to the property following further reports of damage to the front door at the end of April 2021, by calling the resident and confirming this in follow up emails to her.
Although the resident said she felt intimidated by the landlords’ visit to her on 10 February 2022, it was reasonable for the landlord to visit the resident, outlining in writing (letter dated 24 January 2022) her repair and tenancy responsibilities following the repeated damage to the front door. Furthermore, by outlining her responsibilities it was acting in line with its repair policy which says that repairs will be charged to a resident “due to breakage and neglect”. It is noted the police confirmed that there was no indication to suggest third parties had been involved in the damage to the front door nor any burglary had taken place.
Nevertheless, it was not appropriate, and would have been confusing for the resident to receive the letter, which was dated 24 January 2022 on 10 February 2022 visit. Especially, given the fact it contained information that predated the visit. It would have been more appropriate for the letter to be given to the resident before the new door was installed. Particularly as the landlord said in the letter “that in order to make the resident feel safe it would install a new front door on 25 January 2022 and the tenancy management officer would remain present whilst the work is carried out”. Information that was relevant before the installation of the door. An internal email seen by this service confirmed that the member of staff was not present at the start of the work and did not stay for the duration of the work. It did however say the resident signed a document stating she was happy with the installation.
It was reasonable for the landlord to discuss with the resident the issue of having no corroborating evidence that a burglary had taken place or confirm that resident was happy with the initial installation of the door. Furthermore, it was fair that the landlord inspected the gaps around the door as reported by the resident at that time and explained that it could not see any gaps. It is understandable that the resident would feel upset by this however the landlord took appropriate actions in investigating the issue.
In the main the landlord acted appropriately when responding to the resident’s later reports of the broken door and by offering her support. However it took 21 days to respond to her early report and that of the police in (31 March 2021) which was a significant delay. Combined with the incorrectly dated correspondence with some confusing content, the landlord’s handling of the reports of the broken door amount to service failure.
In relation to the failures identified, the Ombudsman’s role is to provide fair and proportionate remedies where maladministration or service failure has been identified. In considering this the Ombudsman takes into account our Dispute Resolution Principles: Be Fair, Put Things Right and Learn from Outcomes as well as our own guidance on remedies.
In recognition of the distress and inconvenient experienced by resident for the initial delay in getting the matter resolved, compensation of £100 has been awarded.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was service failure by the landlord in its response to the resident’s reports of an insecure front door.

Reasons

It took three weeks to visit the resident following the reports of security issues with the front door in March 2021. It is however acknowledged that the landlord had tried to chase this matter internally in the interim.
Although it was correct to outline the resident’s repair responsibilities, it was unreasonable to hand deliver a letter on 10 February 2022 that was dated 24 January 2021. In addition, despite the landlord offering to read the letter to the resident this would have still caused confusion to her when she was already feeling distressed about the entire situation.

Orders

The landlord is ordered within four weeks of this determination to:
1. Apologise to the resident for the delay.
2. Pay £100 for the distress experienced by the resident as a result of the landlords handling of the residents reports of insecure front door.
3. Ensure that any contractor working on behalf of the landlord is aware of its repairs policy and timescale, especially repairs categorised as emergency repairs. This should be confirmed to the relevant departments in writing.
4. Confirm to this service that following the inspection of 10 February 2022:
  1. The damaged intumescent strip has been replaced.
  2. The fireproof mastic has been applied to the holes where the previous door chain was fitted.

Recommendations

Although not part of this investigation, the resident made reference to this service that there are other items of disrepair in the property such as a broken bathroom window. Therefore it is recommended that the landlord arrange to inspect the resident’s property for any disrepair issues and carry out any necessary remedial works.