Tower Hamlets Council (202307247)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202307247

Tower Hamlets Council

16 January 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

The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of:
1. The resident’s window repairs.
2. The complaint.

Background

The resident is a secure tenant of the landlord and lives in a 2-bedroomed flat on the twelfth floor of the building. The landlord has recorded vulnerabilities for the resident’s son.
Since 2017, the resident has reported problems with her kitchen and bedroom windows which have included defective window handles, windows not opening and closing property and issues with extreme draughts. Several repairs have been carried out which have included renewing cockspurs, handles and seals, as well as overhauling the windows.
Despite the repairs, the resident continued to report that the windows were not closing property in March 2021. The repair was attended on 26 March 2021 and new handles were fitted to the kitchen and bedroom windows, but the operative recommended that an inspector needed to attend to advise on follow-on works.
A specialist glazing team, who had attended several times over the past three years, attended on 7 April 2021. It is unclear what if any repairs they completed, however, it was recommended that a further inspection was required.
On 7 May 2021, the resident submitted a complaint as the windows had not been fixed. The landlord contacted the resident and was advised that the job had been closed. The resident requested to know why, explaining that the problem had been ongoing for four years.
The landlord issued a stage one response on 21 May 2021 and acknowledged that the service the resident had received had fallen below what would normally be expected. It apologised and offered £100 for the time and trouble, distress and inconvenience caused to the resident in pursuing the matter. It confirmed a further inspection would be carried out on 25 May 2021 and it would update the resident after that time. The resident thanked the landlord for its offer of compensation but rejected it as her priority was to fix the windows.
In June 2021, the resident made a second complaint as “no-one was taking the matter seriously” or updating her.
Internal emails sent on 8 July 2021 confirmed that the major works department had scheduled new windows for the building between 2026 and 2027, but the timeframe was subject to change. It proposed installing secondary glazing to the resident’s windows as a temporary solution.
Seven months later, on 21 February 2022, the resident telephoned the landlord after not hearing anything since August 2021. The landlord advised her that she would need to raise a new repair and complaint. In response, the resident requested that her complaint was escalated to stage two, and advised that landlord of her health concerns, the noise herself and her son were experiencing from being unable to close the windows, the effect it was having on her son’s sleep, and that the property was cold.
On 14 March 2022, the landlord confirmed that it would instal secondary glazing, but it would take 4-6 weeks for the windows to be manufactured.
On 21 April 2022, the resident again requested an escalation of her complaint after the six weeks had passed, the secondary glazing had not been installed and no-one had been in contact with her.
On 8 June 2022, the landlord issued a stage two response and said:
1. It was disappointing that the secondary glazing was not manufactured within the 4–6-week timeframe.
2. The secondary glazing to the bedroom windows were installed on 5 May 2022 but the kitchen window was made too large which caused a further delay. The resident then refused the instal of the kitchen window as it had restricted her opening the bedroom windows more than 2-3 inches.
3. An inspection on 31 May 2022 confirmed that the windows only opened three inches and a recommendation was made for a supervisor to inspect on 10 June 2022, at which point the resident would be advised on the best course of action.
4. It sincerely apologised for the delays the resident experienced.

Events that occurred after the completion of the landlord’s internal complaints process

In January 2023, the resident emailed the landlord after no-one had contacted her, despite confirming that a further inspection would be completed. In a response on 17 March 2023, the landlord said it was extremely sorry that the window repairs remained outstanding. Due to the time that had lapsed, it would arrange an inspection.
Internal emails sent on 26 May 2023 confirmed that the contract’s manager was advised previously that the windows were beyond repair and needed to be renewed. Because of the delay in the major works programme a temporary solution of secondary glazing was installed but had not resolved the problem. It confirmed that the only solution was to remove the secondary glazing and replace the windows, which would require scaffolding to the block.
The landlord emailed the resident on 14 June 2023 to confirm that it had exhausted all options and was unable to carry out any further repairs. It advised the windows would be replaced during the major works programme.
The resident remained unhappy with the landlord’s response and contacted this Service in July 2023 to confirm that she was dissatisfied with the landlord’s lack of action and that the noise from the windows was keeping her disabled son awake at night. She requested that the windows were fixed as a matter of urgency and that she was compensated for the time, distress and inconvenience that had been caused.
In December 2023, the landlord confirmed to the Service that there had been delays in carrying out the repairs. A household member had vulnerabilities which “in the eyes of the Ombudsman would have further severe impact on the family.” Therefore, it increased its compensation from £100 to £675.00 for the distress and inconvenience caused by the delays, which included £150 for failings in its complaint handling.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

It is not disputed by either party that the resident has raised window repairs since 2017. The Ombudsman considers the issues that have been brought to the landlord as a formal complaint, where the landlord has had the opportunity to respond through its formal complaints process.
The issues that led to the resident making a formal complaint to the landlord in May 2021 stemmed from the resident’s reports of faulty windows in March 2021. While the history of window repairs give context to more recent events, the Ombudsman’s investigation will focus on the period from March 2021 onwards.

Assessment

Window repairs

Section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 confirms the landlord has a responsibility to keep in repair the structure and exterior of the property. Rule 13 of the tenancy agreement confirms it will make sure that the structure and exterior of the home is kept in repair. It also confirms repairs will be carried out promptly.
The resident reported that she was unable to fully close her windows in March 2021. The landlord attended and inspected within a reasonable timeframe, renewing some of the handles. It recommended an inspector should visit to advise on follow-on works to fully resolve the problem. It was reasonable for the landlord to instruct a specialist glazing company, who attended 7 April 2021. However, it is unclear what if any information was provided to the resident at this point, or why it was necessary for a further inspection to be arranged. Due to the lack of updates and satisfactory communication, the resident submitted a formal complaint in May 2021.
The landlord stated at stage one that it would carry out an inspection. The resident would then be provided with an update on how it would resolve the matter going forward. Despite its assertions, the landlord failed to provide the resident with meaningful updates, which resulted in the resident pursuing the landlord for updates. It is understandable that the resident felt that the landlord was “not taking the matter seriously.”
In February 2022, the resident pursued the matter again after her last contact from the landlord was in August 2021. The landlord has not disputed that following the long-term absence of a member of staff in August 2021, the repairs were not picked up. It further confirmed that a “lapse in communication” with its contractors, meant that it was only alerted to the outstanding repairs, after the resident had requested an escalation. The Service would expect the landlord to have taken ownership when it became apparent that the works were not being effectively managed or progressed, to minimise further inconvenience to the resident. That it did not was a failing.
It was at this point that the resident re-emphasised the significant impact she experienced because of not being able to fully open her windows due to her health; her son’s vulnerabilities and being unable to sleep in his bedroom; and that the property was cold. Despite the landlord having been aware of the repairs for 11 months, there is no evidence to conclude that the landlord assessed the detriment to the family during this time, considered the vulnerability of the residents, or offered interim support which is a significant failing.
It was reasonable for the landlord to opt for repairs/temporary solutions rather than replacements in the first instance as a means of managing costs. While it took an appropriate step by installing secondary glazing, it was apparent that it failed to resolve the issue, and further impeded the resident’s ability to fully open her windows. Where a repair has not succeeded in resolving the issue, the landlord should look at arranging a replacement rather than attempt further repairs.
While the landlord provided the resident with a further appointment to investigate the matter at stage two of its complaints process, the evidence shows that the resident was not updated and spent an unreasonable amount of time chasing for updates. There is no evidence that the appointment was attended, and if it was, that she was provided with an action plan with defined timescales. The resident was left unsupported even when she made it clear that the conditions were impacting the health of her family. The landlord’s communication exacerbated the situation, delayed the resolution of the substantive issue, and worsened the impact on a vulnerable household.
Over 20 months have passed since the resident reported being unable to open her windows more than 2-3 inches. As the landlord has not put in a lasting and effective fix, the resident faces another 2-3 years without being able to fully open her windows. The Service recognises the significant costs involved with scaffolding the block to replace the windows. However, the landlord has an obligation to meet its repairing responsibilities and ensure that the resident can open and close her windows, and that her property is free from draughts.
This service has identified the following periods of delay, beyond what would be reasonable in the circumstances:
1. There was a delay of 4 weeks between 7 April 2021 and 7 May 2021 in progressing an inspection, despite the resident being advised that it would complete one. During this time, it is not evident that reasonable updates were provided, which resulted in the resident pursing the matter.
2. In July 2021, the landlord confirmed that it would make a case for secondary glazing. The secondary glazing was completed in May 2022, a delay of 46 weeks (minus the 6 weeks for manufacturing).
3. In May 2022, the resident advised that her window openings were restricted following the secondary glazing. The repairs remain outstanding to date. This totals 84 weeks at the time of this report.
In total, there was a period of approximately 134 weeks across the period of the complaint, during which inspections, works, or necessary updates were unreasonably delayed. While the resident had the benefit of living in the property over that period, she did not receive an appropriate service for which she was paying rent.
The Ombudsman has considered that the resident’s enjoyment of both bedrooms and kitchen have been curtailed for a significant period and as such, has ordered the landlord to pay compensation based on 15% of the rent (5% per room) over the 134-week period. The resident’s rent is £127.56 per week. The total compensation equals £2562.45.
Consideration has been given to several factors in this case. The resident has been left without a definitive remedy to resolve the issue and it is important to acknowledge the length of time this issue has remained unresolved. This, along with the limited communication from the landlord throughout, its lack of understanding and proactivity to ensure the resident’s wellbeing was considered and failing to fulfil promises to inspect the property, have contributed to the upset and frustration caused to the resident. The extent and cumulative failings, over a prolonged period, constitute severe maladministration.

Complaint handling

The resident confirmed that she remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s stage one response on 21 May 2021. Although she was grateful for the landlord offering compensation, she declined the offer and requested that the windows were fixed.
The landlord failed to progress the matter to stage two of its complaints process at that stage, despite the resident’s expression of dissatisfaction. This resulted in the resident submitting a further complaint in June 2021 and pursuing the matter again in February and April 2022. It was unreasonable that the resident spent an unreasonable amount of time pursuing the landlord to progress her complaint.
The landlord responded at stage two on 8 June 2022, 265 working days after the resident’s initial request. This is a significant departure from the landlord’s published timeframe of 20 working days.
Despite assertions in both stage one and two responses that further inspections would be carried out, the landlord failed to follow through on its promises, eroding the resident’s confidence that the landlord would put things right. Its stage two response was cursory and lacked sufficient detail to show it had meaningfully investigated the complaint. It also failed to acknowledge the adverse effect caused to the resident.
While the landlord’s complaint policy requires it to put right the problem, apply any lessons learnt to improve services (such as revising policies and procedures) to try to avoid a reoccurrence of the problem, it did not do this and consequently compounded previous failings. The landlord offered £100 at stage one, however, failed to reassess the further significant delays at stage two, or consider the significant adverse effect this had on the household. This was inappropriate and gave the impression that the complaint was not taken seriously.
While it can be a positive step to review a complaint once it has exhausted its complaints process, it was unreasonable in this case that the landlord did not do this before the complaint was referred to this Service, 18-months after the stage two response. This was significantly outside the normal complaints process. That the resident referred the matter, may have initiated the landlord to review the case, which, given the time that has passed, does not demonstrate that it acted fairly, or consistently. It missed opportunities to resolve the complaint at the earliest opportunity.
The landlord acknowledged to this Service that there had been two missed opportunities to escalate the complaint to stage two, which resulted in the resident making a second complaint. This highlights the importance of good complaint handling, with missed opportunities where the landlord could have put things right earlier and helped to rebuild its relationship with the resident.
Considering the evidence available, the Ombudsman finds the landlord failed to treat the resident’s complaint with the necessary attention, care, and importance it deserved. It also failed to comply with the Complaint Handling Code (Code), effectively blocking the resident’s access to the complaint process. This compounded the detriment to the resident as she was uncertain as to how seriously the landlord was taking her concerns and prevented from the resident accessing the Service within a reasonable timeframe.
As such, the £150 compensation offered by the landlord for its complaint handling failures, 18-months after the completion of its complaints process is unreasonable, and disproportionate to the failings in its complaint handling. The Ombudsman concludes there were significant failings in the landlord’s handling of the complaint, in which the substantive issue is still not resolved, demonstrating a lack of ownership, active management and complaint oversight. The complaints procedure was not used as an effective tool, instead compounding the detriment caused. Due to the cumulative failings and detriment caused to the resident, a finding of severe maladministration has been made following:
1. The resident repeatedly having to chase for responses.
2. Its failure to initially escalate the complaint.
3. Its lack of accountability at stage one or stage two.
4. An 18-month delay after the end of the complaints process before the landlord reviewed and acknowledged its complaint handling failures. before, post stage two, before reviewing and acknowledging its complaint handling failings.
5. A failure to demonstrate learning from the complaint and identify steps it would take to improve its complaint handling and repairs service going forward.
6. Its failure to satisfactorily put things right for the resident.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was severe maladministration in relation to:
1. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s window repairs.
2. The complaint.

Orders

The landlord is ordered, within four weeks of the date of this report to:
1. Apologise to the resident in person (or by email/letter if the resident prefers) for the failings identified in this report. The apology should come from a senior member of staff.
2. Pay the resident compensation of £3812.45 made up of:
  1. £2,562.45 for the delay in repairing the windows affecting the resident’s enjoyment of her property (as detailed in paragraph 31).
  2. £750 for the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident because of the landlord’s handling of the repairs.
  3. £500 for the inconvenience, time and trouble caused because of the landlord’s complaint handling.
  4. This replaces the landlord’s previous offer of £650.00. If already paid, this should be deducted from the overall total.
  5. The landlord should pay the money directly to the resident and treated separately to any financial arrangements between itself and the resident.
3. Within six weeks of the date of this report, the landlord must:
  1. Instruct an independent surveyor to inspect the windows and confirm how it will ensure it meets its repairing obligations. In doing so, it should consider:

1. Whether the windows can be replaced safely, without the need for scaffolding.

2. Whether a repair or replacement of the secondary glazing is needed to ensure it stops draughts and allows the windows to open adequately.

3. If a successful repair cannot be completed, the landlord should explore alternative accommodation options, in consultation with the resident. This could include a temporary decant or a permanent move.

4. The outcome of which should be shared with the Ombudsman, also within six weeks.

5. Following the outcome, and dependent on the landlord’s approach to the repairs, the Ombudsman will consider whether additional compensation is appropriate, on the basis set out in paragraph 31 of the report.

The landlord is ordered to conduct a review of this case to identify learning and improve working practices. This review must include, as a minimum:
1. An explanation as to how the landlord will improve its communication with its contractors, and whether improved processes and procedures would reduce the likelihood of similar failings happening again.
2. Complete refresher training with its staff on complaint handling, with specific regard to the Complaint Handling Code.
3. The findings of the review should be shared with this Service within eight weeks of the date of this determination.