Tower Hamlets Homes (202009013)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202009013

Tower Hamlets Homes

3 June 2021

 

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 resident complained about:

  1. The information the landlord provided about the window replacement.
  2. The landlord’s handling of their formal complaint.

Jurisdiction

2.     What we can and cannot consider is called the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. This is governed by the Housing Ombudsman Scheme. When a complaint is brought to the Ombudsman, we must consider all the circumstances of the case as there are sometimes reasons why a complaint will not be investigated.

3.     After carefully considering all the evidence, in accordance with paragraph 39k of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the following aspect of the complaint is outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.

Complaint about staff member

4.     The complaint brought to the landlord by resident concerning the staff member related to the scope and outcome of the investigation of this complaint, at stage one of its complaint procedure. The outcome of a complaint is not an issue relating to staff conduct.

5.     The complaint process offers escalation and the opportunity to address inaccuracies in the stage one response, add further information or challenge decisions. We would not consider a complaint about a complaint response, as a complaint about the member of staff who investigated and responded to a complaint.

6.     This Service does not review complaints relating to employment and would not assess a landlord’s staff member’s capabilities. Any dissatisfaction with a staff members response, would be reviewed by this Service in the context of the landlord as an organisation. 

7.     However, it is noted that the complaint about the member of staff has been addressed in other correspondence that has been exchanged between the resident and the landlord.

Background and summary of events

8.     The resident is a leaseholder of their property. In November 2017, the landlord sent a Section 20 notice of intention to residents to inform that it would undertake major works. It confirmed that works to the windows would be included as part of the major works and described these works as, Renewal of existing windows: Renew any type window with purpose made PVCu.

9.     On 25 March 2019, the landlord wrote to residents and invited them to meet with the contractor undertaking the major works. During the meeting, it presented the residents with an overview of the major works, including the works to the windows which it described as window replacement.

10. Following this, it submitted a planning application to the local council for the proposed works to the windows. The local authority wrote to the residents of the estate notifying them of the application. It described the works the landlord proposed as, the replacement of existing softwood painted timer windows with modern uPVC double glazed windows.

11. In February 2020, the landlord sent a newsletter to residents updating on the progress of the major works. It described the works to the windows as window renewals and when providing the update on the works, it said that pilot windows would be installed at two properties on the estate. It stated that once the installation of the pilot windows was completed, windows would be installed to the remaining properties in the block.

12. Following the completion of the window replacement, the resident wrote to the landlord on 13 July 2020 with a formal complaint. They explained that they had not been made aware that the replacement of windows would include replacing the transparent glazing with obscure glazing to their living room window. They said that they objected to the obscured glass installed, and asked the landlord:

  1. Why it made the decision to change the glass from clear to obscured glass?
  2. Who had authorised the change?
  3. Why residents had not been consulted about the change to the glass?
  4. When it would replace the obscure glass with clear glass?

13. The landlord recorded a formal complaint at stage one of its complaints procedure and provided its response to the resident on 29 July 2020. In response to the resident’s questions, it said:

  1. The obscure glass was the dominant detail and was adopted throughout the scheme to try and harmonise the buildings. It said that before the works were completed, there were different types of glass in different windows.
  2. The benefit of the obscure glass in the lower portion of the door / glazed side screens was that it provided a level of visual screening and concealed the property chattels from view from the outside which it said, improved the urban street scene.
  3. That the change was communicated to residents and was subject to a public planning application, and it was not possible to reconsult and change the glass.
  4. As a leaseholder, the resident should have received notification and consultation about the change to their living room window, and it referred the resident to their Resident Liaison Officer.

14. On the 6 August 2020, the resident submitted another complaint to the landlord concerning its response at stage one. They said:

  1. They were unhappy with the investigation and did not believe the landlord answered their questions. They asked the landlord to reinvestigate the complaint.
  2. Given where the living room window was located, the property chattels could not be seen from outside unless someone was at a height.
  3. As a result of the change to the glass in the living room window, 35% of the natural light had been lost, as well as the ability to look out of the window when seated. This had an adverse effect on them.
  4. They disputed the landlord’s claim that the residents were consulted and challenged landlord’s assertion that obscure glass was the dominant detail of the estate. They said the majority of the properties on the estate still had transparent glass in their windows and invited the landlord to walk around the estate with them to observe this.
  5. They disputed the landlord’s statement that there were different types of glass in windows before the replacement and asked the landlord to provide details of the properties it was referring to.
  6. They stated that they believed the consultation was flawed and they requested evidence that residents received notification of the planning application.
  7. It should have been made explicitly clear to residents that there would be a change to the type of glass, aside from them having to review the planning application, which they may not have been aware of.
  8. The landlord had not provided a reason as to why it could not change the glazing, but they wanted the glass to be replaced with transparent glass.
  9. That the landlord’s statement that they should have received notification and consultation about the change, did not answer their complaint.
  10. That they wished to submit a complaint about the member of staff who investigated the stage one complaint as they were unhappy with their investigation.

15. Following receipt of the resident’s complaint, the landlord escalated the complaint to stage two of its procedure. It provided its final response on 29 October 2020 and said:

  1. The decision to install the obscure glass was reached as a result of an architect’s design and was approved by the Council’s Planning Department.
  2. The side panels to the front entrance door were incorrectly replaced with obscure glass and the only replacement to the obscure glass would be to those side panels.
  3. There was a general consultation relating to the major works in general but not specifically in relation to the windows.
  4. It recognised that going forward, it should work with contractors to ensure they engage with residents on designs ahead of submissions to the planning department.
  5. The pilot windows were installed in February 2020, but there was no formal invitation to residents to view them. It apologised that it was not made clear that residents could visit and view the pilot windows upon completion and said there were plans for residents to view the pilots, which could not go ahead due to the pandemic.
  6. It appreciated that it may take residents some time to get used to the change to the obscure glass in the window however, the windows comply with building regulations and there were no plans to replace them.

16. The resident wrote back to the landlord on 11 November 2020 and asked it to confirm the status of their complaint about the member of staff who conducted the stage one investigation. The landlord responded and confirmed that its stage two response had covered all aspects of the complaint they submit, including the outcome of the stage one investigation and whether the staff member’s response was appropriate. The landlord confirmed that its stage two response was its final response to the complaint.

17. The resident was unhappy with the response to the complaint and referred it to the Ombudsman for consideration. When explaining the outstanding matters from the complaint, they said that:

  1. They were unhappy with the obscured glass the landlord installed to the living room window. The change had an impact on the value of the property, their ability to see out of the window and, their health.
  2. The landlord’s stage one response did not address their complaint and had a number of inaccuracies.
  3. The landlord acknowledged their complaint about the staff member who investigated the stage one complaint, as a separate complaint, but had not provided its response.
  4. The stage two response had inaccuracies in it and did not address the concerns they raised about the stage one investigation and response.

Policies

The landlord has provided this Service with a copy of a document it states is given to all residents, which provides its guidance around major works.

18. The guidance states that before major works start, the landlord will write to residents with details of the works it plans to carry out and will give them the opportunity to comment on the type and design of works. In addition, it says it will inform residents when the works will start and how long they will take to complete.

19. In relation to window replacements specifically, the guidance states: The type of windows we install in your block may vary depending on the block and other planning and building requirements. In general, our window specification is:

–          like for like design – where possible we will use the original window design layout.

 

 

Complaint’s policy and procedure

20. The landlord has two stages in its complaint procedure. Its complaints policy provides that if a complainant is not satisfied with the response at stage one, they can ask for a review of the case with their reasons.

Assessment and findings

The information provided about the window replacement and the type of glass to the living room window.

21. From the information this Service has been provided, it is understood that prior to the replacement of the windows, the resident’s living room window was made up of four glass panes within timber frames. The two frames in the upper portion of the window consisted of clear glazing and the two frames to the lower part of the window consisted of clear Georgian wired glass. Following the replacement, the glass panes to the lower portion of the window, were replaced with obscure glass.

22. In the Section 20 notice to residents sent in November 2017, the landlord explained that it would renew the windows and described the works as follows: Window: Renew any type window with purpose made PVCu.

23. The landlord said it wrote to residents in March 2019, inviting them to meet with its contractors about the major works. However, this Service has not received evidence that this correspondence was sent to the resident and the landlord has confirmed that they did not attend the meeting.

24. The landlord has provided a copy of the presentation shown at the meeting with its contractors. This presentation included an overview of the major works and described the works to the window as Window replacement. Had the resident attended this meeting, the presentation they would have seen does not provide information about a change from clear to obscure glazing to their living room window.

25. The local authority wrote to residents on 28 October 2019, notifying them about the planning application. The correspondence described the works the landlord proposed as, the replacement of existing softwood painted timber windows with modern uPVC double glazed windows.

26. The landlord’s newsletter to residents in February 2020, explained that it would be carrying out window renewals. It also stated that pilot windows would be installed to two properties on the estate. The landlord has explained to this Service that the pilot windows were installed, however, residents were not offered the opportunity to view these due to the Covid pandemic.

27. As mentioned above, the landlord’s guidance sets out that it will write to residents with details about the works taking place and give them the opportunity to comment on the type and design of works. Its general specification for window replacements is like for like design and where possible, the same layout is used. From the information this Service has seen, when the landlord wrote to residents, the works to the windows were described as: Window renewal, Renewal of existing windows: Renew any type window with purpose made PVCu. It provided no information about changing the type of glass to the living room window.

28. Notification of a planning application is not an appropriate way to notify residents that the landlord intends to make a significant change to their property. Nevertheless, the planning application notification described the works to the windows as replacement of existing softwood painted timer windows with modern uPVC double glazed windows. It would not be reasonable to expect a resident to assume from this correspondence that this also included a change from transparent to obscure glass.

29. The landlord was aware of the scope of work it intended to carry out, prior to the installation and was therefore aware that it was going to change the glazing to the resident’s living room windows from transparent to obscure glazing. Knowing that the work would have had a noticeable and significant change upon the resident’s property, it would have been appropriate for the landlord to clearly communicate this to the resident. The correspondence that this Service has seen makes reference to replacement of window frames and the renewal of windows. It would not be reasonable to expect a recipient to interpret that as meaning glazing would change from transparent to obscure. The landlord should have been explicitly clear about this change, especially given that it deviates from their general specification, as set out in its guidance on major works.

Complaint’s handling

30.  As set out above, this Service is not satisfied that the landlord provided any information to residents notifying them about the change to the glazing in the living room window.

31. The resident’s complaint concerns the landlord’s decision to change the type of glass to their living room window and the notification it provided to residents about this this change. They made the following points in their complaints to the landlord:

  1. They questioned why the landlord made the decision to change the glass, who had authorised its decision and why they had not been consulted about the change to the glass.
  2. They challenged the landlord’s statement in its stage one response about the benefit of the obscure glass, disputing that people were not able to see into their property due to the height of the window.
  3. They said that the amount of natural light and visibility through the window had been reduced as a result of the change to the glass.
  4. They disputed the landlord’s conclusion at stage 1 of the complaint procedure that the change was consulted and disputed that the obscure glass was the dominant detail of the estate prior to the replacement.
  5. They disputed the landlord’s statement that there were different types of glass in different windows and asked the landlord to provide the details of the properties it was referring to.
  6. They believed the consultation that took place was flawed and requested evidence that the residents received notification of the planning application.

32. When responding to the resident’s complaints, the landlord failed to provide responses to points, b-f, listed above. This was not reasonable as the points the resident raised related to requests for evidence in support of the landlord’s findings at stage one.

33. In the stage two response, the landlord’s finding regarding the consultation that took place was at odds with its finding in the stage one response. In the stage one response, it said that the change was communicated however, the stage two response confirmed that there was no consultation specifically in relation to the windows. The landlord should have acknowledged this discrepancy when it provided its stage two response and factored this into its assessment about the effectiveness and fairness of the consultation process.

 

34. In addition to this, this Service has not seen any information supporting the landlord’s position at stage one that the change was communicated to residents.

 

35. It is important that landlords are accurate in responding to complaints and that their decisions are evidence based. In this case, it appears that the landlord’s position particularly at stage one is not supported by any evidence.

 

Determination (decision)

36. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Scheme, there was maladministration in relation to the information the landlord provided to the resident about the window replacement.

37. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Scheme, there was a service failure in respect of the landlord’s complaint handling.

Reasons

38. The landlord did not act in line with its own guidance when replacing the windows. The landlord’s correspondence did not set out that the glazing would change, it would not have been reasonable for recipients of the landlord’s information to interpret descriptions such as, Window renewal, Renewal of existing windows: Renew any type window with purpose made PVCu, to mean glazing would change from transparent to obscure. The landlord had an obligation to inform residents that it was changing the outlook of the resident’s property. It did not take adequate or appropriate steps to do this, and the language used in updates did not reflect the changes which occurred.

 

39. The landlord’s complaint responses failed to address the resident’s complaint in full. Responses at stage 1 and stage 2 of the complaint process were contradictory when discussing the consultation process. The landlord’s final position supports the complaint that no consultation took place in relation to the change to the glazing in the window. However, having identified a service failure, it took no further steps to assess the impact this had upon the resident or to put things right.

 

Orders

40. In recognition of the above finding of maladministration relating to the information the landlord provided to the resident about the installation of obscure glazing at their property, I make the following orders:

 

  1. The landlord to replace the obscure glazing at the resident’s property with transparent glazing, or to provide compensation equivalent to the cost incurred by the resident should they arrange this.

 

  1. £100 compensation in recognition of its failure to provide the resident with accurate information about the change to glazing at their property.

 

41. In recognition of the finding of service failure in relation to the landlord’s complaint handling, I order that the landlord pay the resident £100 compensation.

Recommendation

42. The landlord may want to consider whether the Ombudsman’s findings on this case and the order to replace the glazing, could be applicable to similar complaints from other residents on the same estate.