Thurrock Council (202336037)

Background

1. The resident lives with his wife in the property which is a 3-bed mid-terrace house. Both residents are recorded as being vulnerable due to health conditions. Prior to making his formal complaint, the resident had previously reported issues with draughts, condensation and leaks from his roof. He had also been chasing progress with a major works programme which he believed would be replacing his windows, roof and guttering.
    

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of:
   1.  The resident’s request for window repair and replacement.
   2.  The resident’s reports of damaged roof, faulty guttering and soffits.
   3. The associated complaint and communication.

Our decision (determination)

3. We have found that:
   1. There was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for window repair and replacement.
   2. There was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of damaged roof, faulty guttering and soffits.
   3. There was maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling and communication.

We have made orders for the landlord to put things right.

Summary of reasons

Window repair and replacement

4. The landlord delayed in providing a clear response to the resident’s query regarding whether his windows were due to be replaced as part of improvement works. The landlord also failed to inspect and remedy window repairs within a reasonable timescale.

Roof, soffits and guttering repairs to the property

5. The landlord failed to inspect and remedy the resident’s reports of repairs to the fascia boards, soffits and guttering within a reasonable timescale.

Complaint handling and communication

6. The landlord delayed in recognising and responding to the complaint in line with its policy and the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code). It also issued a stage 2 complaint response without first progressing the complaint through stage 1 of its complaint process as per the Code’s prescription.

Putting things right

Where we find service failure, maladministration or severe maladministration we can make orders for the landlord to put things right. We have the discretion to make recommendations in all other cases within our jurisdiction.

Orders

Landlords must comply with our orders in the manner and timescales we specify. The landlord must provide documentary evidence of compliance with our orders by the due date set.

Recommendations

Our recommendations are not binding, and a landlord may decide not to follow them.

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

What we found and why

The circumstances of this complaint are well known by the parties involved, so it is not necessary to detail everything that’s happened or comment on all the information we’ve reviewed. We’ve only included the key information that forms the basis of our decision of whether the landlord is responsible for maladministration.

7. The resident said he had reported window issues since 2019, including draughts and blown panes. The available evidence shows that the landlord wrote to the resident on 7 October 2022. It explained that it wanted to keep the resident informed regarding the ‘internal refurbishment works in your home’. The landlord confirmed that it had been carrying out works to improve homes across the borough. This included upgrading roofs, windows, soffits and guttering, as well as providing new kitchens, bathrooms, boilers and electrical works. The letter confirmed that the resident’s home remained on the programme with ‘the timeframe for works to commence as a priority from April 2023’.
8. A landlord’s surveyor attended on 13 April 2023 following a request from a councillor to inspect the windows. The surveyor’s report of the visit noted that the resident wanted to know why his property was being overlooked for major cyclical work, such as new guttering, facia boards, soffits and windows.
9. The surveyor recommended that the landlord write to the resident to inform him:
   1. If the transforming homes program was still active;
   2. If the resident’s property is still on the list for works;
   3. What works are planned for the resident’s property; and
   4. When the works will commence.

The landlord has not provided any evidence to show that it wrote to the resident to explain the above. The landlord’s internal emails suggest that the landlord spoke to the resident to inform him that his property was on the list for internal improvement works, but not external. The resident has indicated that this call took place on 3 August 2023 after he called the landlord in July 2023. There is no written record of the telephone call to confirm what was discussed with the resident. He has indicated that he was told the landlord would provide a further update. An important update such as this should have been provided in writing, particularly given the last letter to the resident had indicated works were likely to begin in April 2023. This is a shortfall in service.

10. The surveyor stated that there were ‘a few minor issues’ which the resident identified. It is not clear what these minor issues were, but the surveyor confirmed that a works order would be raised to address them. The resident has stated that he understood that the landlord would be attending again to inspect the loft. Again, the landlord has not provided any evidence to show that it followed up on these minor issues and remedied them. This is a shortfall in service.
11. The resident wrote a letter of complaint to the landlord on 23 October 2023. He highlighted that his concerns about the condition of the windows (and draughts around them) remained unaddressed. The resident noted that there had been no follow up from the April 2023 appointment or the August 2023 telephone call.
12. The landlord arranged for a surveyor to attend on 16 November 2023 and inspect the windows. The report indicates that the surveyor explained to the resident that the property’s windows were not on the list of proposed improvement works at this time. The surveyor also noted that ‘upon inspection all the windows throughout the property were functioning correctly and merely required some minor works to provide full functionality’.
13. The surveyor recommended that the double glazing unit in the lounge and one of the bedrooms (both the large window and the fanlight window) should be renewed as the glazing was ‘blown’. The handles for all the windows should be ‘overhauled’ and additional silicone should be applied to the windows in the lounge and bathroom. The window draught gaskets should also be replaced ‘where necessary’. The landlord raised these works on 22 November 2023.
14. The landlord’s contractors attended on 14 December 2023 and fitted a handle to the bedroom window, tightened 10 handles on other windows in the property, adjusted gaskets on the windows and ordered a new double glazed unit. The landlord booked further glazing works for 9 January 2024, but the glass had not been delivered in time. On 30 January 2024, contractors fitted three double-glazed units and added gaskets ‘where necessary’.
15. The resident wrote to this Service on 6 February 2024. He stated that the blown windows had been replaced but no action had been taken to address the draughts or loose window handles. We informed the landlord that the resident remained unhappy. As part of its complaint response dated 17 April 2024, the landlord booked a further survey to address the resident’s ‘ongoing concerns around repair issues’.
16. The landlord arranged for a surveyor to attend on 7 May 2024 and inspect the windows again. This was the same surveyor that visited in November 2023. The surveyor’s report indicates that they found no draughts evident at the time of their visit. The surveyor did not recommend any repairs or remedial works. The surveyor’s report notes that they offered to return when the conditions were windy/wet to assess the guttering and potential draughts again.
17. Overall, the resident reported concerns about his windows, via his councillor, in March 2023. The landlord inspected the windows in April 2023. It identified the need to clearly inform the resident of where they stood in terms of improvement works. The landlord also found minor issues to repair. The landlord failed to progress either of these issues.
18. Although the landlord spoke to the resident in August 2023 (after the resident chased a response), the information should have also been provided clearly in writing. In addition, the resident was left with the impression that he would be contacted with a further update and this did not occur.
19. The resident complained to the landlord in October 2023. The landlord then took appropriate steps to inspect and complete repairs. However, the further inspection and remedial works should have been actioned in April 2023. This was an unreasonable delay.
20. Once the landlord was aware that the resident remained unhappy, it responded appropriately by completing an additional inspection in May 2024. We have ordered the landlord to maintain the surveyor’s offer to visit again during windy/wet weather to assess the guttering and draughts in the property. 

21. The resident said that he had been reporting issues with the roof, guttering, fascia and soffits since 2019. The landlord’s records show a report on 6 December 2022, when the resident reported that his loft was wet and he believed there was a leak. The evidence shows that the landlord attended following the initial report on 3 January 2023. Its contractor reported that the gutters were blocked, and the likely cause of the water was condensation in the roof void. The contractor said that there were no repairs required to the roof, but that it had cleared the gutters. These were reasonable steps to take and in line with the landlord’s repairs policy.
22. A landlord’s surveyor attended on 13 April 2023 and noted that the resident thought the guttering, facia boards and soffits required replacement. The resident understood that the landlord would be attending again to inspect the loft, but the landlord did not return or progress any further investigations. This is a shortfall in service.
23. The resident wrote a letter of complaint to the landlord on 23 October 2023. He highlighted that his concerns about the leaking guttering and problems with the soffits remained unaddressed. The resident noted that he had raised these concerns during the April 2023 appointment, but the landlord had not visited again.
24. Following the inspection on 16 November 2023, the surveyor confirmed that the soffits and facias did not require replacement. They noted that the soffits and facias were not damaged and the flaking paint was purely a decorative issue.
25. The landlord’s contractors cleared the guttering on 14 December 2023. They also raised a guttering repair. The job noted that the facias and soffits should also be inspected. The landlord attended on 4 January 2024 and repaired the guttering. The landlord concluded that the facias and soffits did not require replacement.
26. The resident wrote to this Service on 6 February 2024. He stated that he was awaiting repairs to the guttering (back), facias and soffits (front and back). We informed the landlord that the resident remained unhappy. As part of its complaint response dated 17 April 2024, the landlord booked a further survey to address the resident’s ‘ongoing concerns around repair issues’.
27. Following the inspection on 7 May 2024, the surveyor reported that they could see no issues with the guttering. The surveyor did not recommend any repairs or remedial works. The surveyor’s report notes that they offered to return when the conditions were windy/wet to assess the guttering and potential draughts again.
28. The resident complained to the landlord in October 2023. The landlord then took appropriate steps to inspect and complete repairs. However, the further inspection and remedial works should have been actioned in April 2023. This was an unreasonable delay.
29. Once the landlord was aware that the resident remained unhappy, it responded appropriately by completing an additional inspection in May 2024. We have ordered the landlord to maintain the surveyor’s offer to visit again during windy/wet weather to assess the guttering and draughts in the property. 

30. The Housing Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (‘the Code’) sets out when and how a landlord should respond to complaints. The Ombudsman defines a complaint as: ‘An expression of dissatisfaction, however made, about the standard of service, actions, or lack of action by an organisation, its own staff, or those acting on its behalf. Affecting an individual resident or group of residents.’ 
31. A complaint is different to a request for service. This is when a resident asks their landlord to act, for example, to carry out a repair. A landlord’s complaints policy should clearly set out the difference between a service request and a complaint, and how they will respond to both. Landlords should be provided the opportunity to respond to a service request for issues reported for the first time, therefore landlords may decide to raise a service request rather than a complaint when an issue is first reported to it.
32. The resident’s complaint letter dated 23 October 2023 noted that he had spoken with staff in April 2023 and August 2023. On both occasions, he expected further action to be taken regarding his reports of repairs, but the landlord did not follow up. As such, the resident was unhappy both that repairs he had reported were not being progressed and that the landlord was contacting him again as agreed.
33. The resident had clearly expressed dissatisfaction and this was not the first time he had raised these concerns. For that reason, the landlord should have logged, acknowledged and investigated the matter as a complaint. The landlord acted incorrectly by treating the matter as a service request.
34. The resident referred the matter to us. We contacted the landlord on 15 January 2024 and asked it provide a stage 1 response to the resident. We chased a response from the landlord on 15 and 27 March 2024 and 2, 5 and 17 April 2024. On each occasion we asked the landlord to provide a stage 1 complaint response. The landlord issued a stage 2 response on 17 April 2024. The landlord acted incorrectly by skipping the first stage of the complaints process.
35. These are significant shortfalls in the landlord’s complaint handling. This Service has not been provided any evidence to show that any form of redress has been offered to the resident for these delays, or that any learning, training or process changes have been made to prevent a reoccurrence. We have made orders in respect of these issues.

Learning

36. We have asked the landlord to conduct a learning review.

Communication

37. There were internal communication delays and errors when the matter was originally reported – the landlord needs to know and understand why these occurred and whether this is a wider problem within its organisation.