Tower Hamlets Homes (202107775)

A blue and grey text Description automatically generated

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202107775

Tower Hamlets Homes

25 July 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 handling of:
1. Communal repairs including concerns about health and safety.
2. Window overhaul survey.
The Ombudsman has also investigated the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background and summary of events

Background

The resident is a secure tenant in a 1-bedroom property situated within a block.
The landlord’s responsive repairs policy states:
1. It is responsible for repairs that are necessary to any communal areas such as communal lighting and external areas.
2. It will regularly inspect communal and external areas of estates as part of walkabouts with residents. It would record any repairs identified and carried out.
3. It would have emergency repairs completed within 24 hours, with a 2-hour response to make them safe and prevent danger if required, with additional works completed within 24 hours. It then describes these repairs as those that have serious effects on people or damage to their home. This included making safe major structural damage, and loss of lighting to communal areas.
4. Where works were identified because of a responsive repair request, they were extensive, and it is not appropriate to undertake the complete works as an unplanned responsive repair, if they were due to be covered by an imminent cyclical or planned maintenance programme, residents would be informed of this, and the repair postponed until that date.
5. Major repairs are considered urgent because they pose a significant risk to occupants, or where vulnerable residents are involved, it may be necessary to consider bringing the works forward. Such decisions would be taken by the relevant director.
6. It will ensure its property does not cause a danger to neighbours, members of the public or trespassers, and it will take reasonable steps to prevent accidents from occurring.

Summary of Events

The landlord was undertaking planned repairs to several of its blocks in 2020. It identified some of the works required were not feasible as certain items required replacement instead of repairs. On 16 December 2020, the landlord contacted the residents. It explained:
1. It had completed works around tidying cables. It also discussed outstanding works. It explained the original works package included repairs to the decoration of the existing handrail and asphalt repairs to the walkways.
2. Its surveys revealed the handrails were in poorer condition than anticipated, and the extent of repairs required to the asphalt walkway was more than anticipated. As such, it took the view the handrails should be replaced, and walkways should have a completely new liquid coating system installed.
3. As a result, the works would no longer be completed under the current programme and would take place in the future under a different programme.
Following a six-month gap, the resident emailed the landlord on 21 June 2021, with information about the works he considered the landlord had not carried out adequately and raised health and safety issues around these. He explained:
1. The ceiling of the block had holes in it, as well as the paint scraping off and the works were not completed properly.
2. There were wires hanging down which were not secured properly. He expressed these were a major hazard and needed to be sorted urgently.
3. The railing had worn away, leaving massive cracks, holes, and splinters. This was a major hazard as the whole railing needed to be replaced “ASAP”. He explained the pictures he had provided did not “do it justice” and it was much worse in some parts of the block.
4. The glass on the railing was broken in several places and it was extremely dangerous especially for children.
5. The floor was riddled with holes and damaged. The landlord had identified this as something that needed to be fixed, which was why they drew out the damage in bright red, yet this was missed.
6. The banister was not secured properly.
The landlord responded to the resident on 28 June 2021. It advised it had reviewed the points he raised and stated:
1. It had noticed the loose wires during its walkabout. The contractor would be revisiting imminently to clip the wires back, and it would also be cleaning the red marking paint from the asphalt where the repairs were marked up.
2. The resident had raised points related to items of work that were omitted from the programme. The landlord referred him to the letter sent to residents in December 2020, which provided an update on the works, including the omitted items.
3. It explained that the omission of the asphalt, handrails and ceiling was due to the surveys showing the extent of repairs required and subsequent decisions to replace them rather than repair them. It said it would reassign these aspects of work to a separate contract in the near future. It would write to him nearer the time to advise when the works would take place. It had requested callouts from its repairs team for the stairwell banister to be secured and the cracked glass and splintered handrail to be inspected/repaired.
Following the landlord’s response, the resident emailed on 29 June 2021, asking that it confirm when the works would take place as the current situation was hazardous and unsafe. He said the handrails were not fitted properly. There was broken glass, and the railing was worn and had sharp bits and pieces. He explained this was an issue as the block had a lot of elderly people and children in the building. He told the landlord this could not wait much longer and questioned if there was someone else, he could raise the repairs with. He raised issues with all the works the landlord had previously commented on, and said he was concerned it was unaware of the extent the repairs had been left incomplete. He also explained that the landlord’s window overhaul survey had identified his windows and door handles required replacing, but the landlord had done nothing.
On the same day, the resident raised a complaint with the landlord. He reiterated the issues he raised in his email of 21 June 2021 and added:
1. The landlord had conducted repairs recently but to a “disturbing” extent, and some of them were a major hazard and needed to be sorted out urgently.
2. The window overhaul survey was carried out but was not seen through, and he was still waiting for the landlord to fix the problems it identified.
3. The lighting did not come on, on time, and there had been nights when the block was completely dark. This was very dangerous as his wife, who was pregnant then, struggled due to this.
4. He asked the landlord to provide details of when it will conduct the works. It said it would consider the repairs in the future, but that was unacceptable.
On the same day, the landlord communicated internally. It asked its staff for responses on actions it would take to address the resident’s concerns, and details of the works to be completed. It also emailed the resident and acknowledged his complaint.
The landlord discussed the resident’s complaint internally on 5 July 2021. It said:
1. It had previously responded to the resident about some of the issues he raised, such as the loose wires, railing, broken glass on the railing, and damaged floor and ceiling.
2. The required works for these issues were due to be completed as part of a future scheme. The landlord also noted the window surveys took place, but the required works were omitted.
3. It had previously advised the resident its repairs team was aware of the issue about the railing, but it was unsure this was something it could agree to fix. It said the resident had not previously raised issue with the communal lighting. It had not completed any lighting work, so this was a new issue it had to raise with its repairs team.
4. It noted that it had organised a repairs inspection to review the items, the resident had reported were dangerous and see if it could do anything to make the areas safe until the next programme was scheduled.
The resident emailed the landlord on 8 July 2021 to chase its complaint response. He said despite the landlord’s confirmation of an imminent response, live wires continued to hang outside the entrance of his home, and he felt the landlord was underestimating the severity of the complaint. He stated he would also like to ask the landlord to conduct a health and safety inspection of the building as soon as possible.
It is unclear when, but the resident emailed the landlord again, providing photographs of the property, following the landlord’s planned works. He also reiterated the concerns set out in his complaint. He said the window overhaul survey was completed at his property, but the repairs identified were never conducted. The landlord responded on 8 July 2021, thanking the resident for his update, and confirming it would investigate.
On 12 July 2021, the landlord contacted the resident and told him it was waiting for further information and once received, it would respond to his complaint.
A note on the landlord’s system dated 16 July 2021 indicates the landlord then arranged an inspection of the resident’s block to see if it could complete any repairs. It provided a job number for the hanging wires, glass on the railings, flooring, and lighting. It also commented that:
1. It could secure and make safe the damaged railing, but nothing further could be done.
2. The repairs to the ceiling were for its contractor to deal with.
3. It queried if the resident had details of the window survey, as it was not on its system, and it needed to clarify which area was surveyed.
It is unclear when, but the landlord updated the resident about his complaint. The resident responded to this on 16 July 2021. He commented on the railings and provided images. He asked the landlord to confirm it was happy the railing was safe for its residents.
The landlord provided its stage one response to the resident on 19 July 2021 by email. The response letter is dated 12 July 2021. Within the response, it confirmed:
1. The wires required cutting back and/or securing, and the works to the railing, flooring, and ceiling were omitted from the scope of works and costs, as they required full replacement, which it could not include within the scheme at the time.
2. The works would be programmed in and carried out in a future scheme. It had completed the window surveys and would complete the window overhaul in its next scheduled works programme.
3. The communal lighting was faulty and required a repair which it was organising. It apologised for the delay and inconvenience because it had not completed the works as quickly as expected.
4. It explained the delay had partly been caused by the increase in the scope of work being greater than it expected, and it required its team to reduce or omit other elements of work while also prioritising fire safety work.
5. Delays had also been partly caused by the pandemic, which affected its contractor’s working practices and requirements. It explained it will complete the work within the next five years.
6. If the resident would like to meet its project manager to discuss the work further, it would arrange a visit.
7. A works order would be raised for the repairs team to inspect the issues he highlighted to ensure they were safe, and the lighting was operational.
8. The landlord would contact him again on 16 July 2021, when it would update him and ensure it completed the inspection.
The landlord updated the resident about the repairs it agreed to complete on 26 July 2021. It explained it believed:
1. The repairs around the unsafe wires and faulty communal lighting were completed on 19 July 2021.
2. Its contractor was due to address the issues with the damaged glass and large cracks, holes, and splinters in the various areas of the wooden handrails by 9 August 2021.
3. Its contractor would attend on 6 August 2021 regarding the stairwell banister not being secured. The landlord said it was keen to ensure the issues were resolved and would contact the resident again on 9 August 2021 with further updates.
The landlord contacted the resident on 9 August 2021 and confirmed it had completed the remaining repairs. On the same day, the resident responded, querying if the landlord was aware of the extent to which the repairs were conducted. He explained the repairs to the floor had not been completed, and they had taped a cross mark on sections of the broken glass panels. He said he would follow up on the initial complaint but wanted to inform the landlord of this.
The resident followed up on his email on 10 August 2021 and requested that the landlord escalate his complaint to stage two of the landlord’s complaint process. He explained the red spray paint, which marked where repairs were required to the flooring, had been painted black and repairs marked as completed. He told the landlord tape had been used on the broken glass panels. He had highlighted several health and safety issues to it, and if any led to injury, he would be holding it responsible. He stated that the landlord had identified that the windows and balcony doors needed repair, but the landlord decided against this later. The landlord acknowledged the resident’s complaint escalation on 12 August 2021.
The landlord arranged a telephone call with the resident on 13 August 2021. This was to identify if a plan of action could be agreed to resolve his complaint. On the same day, it emailed the resident and explained it wanted the opportunity to resolve his complaint at stage one if it was acceptable to him. It said it had arranged a site visit to review the requested urgent repairs to ensure it had completed them to a safe standard. It explained it had previously asked him for details of the window survey and any information he could provide would be helpful. It stated it had also created a file note on its system, which detailed it had arranged a site visit to inspect and confirm the repair works requested had been completed and made safe.
The resident responded to the landlord’s email on 16 August 2021 and apologised for the delay in responding. He explained he did not have details of the window survey, but the landlord’s contractor had attended each house and taken repair details, which should have been available to the landlord. The following day, the landlord contacted the resident and said it was chasing the completion of the repairs. It queried if the resident was satisfied for the matter to be resolved as a stage one complaint or if he still wished to escalate it to a stage two complaint.
Following the landlord’s visit on 18 August 2021, it communicated internally and noted the repairs had not been completed and there were delays with the works. It said it could not provide a definitive response time to the resident, and he had been informed the repairs were chased up, but he had already escalated to stage two. It said it understood the matter was frustrating for the resident, but there was very little it could do. It queried the reason for escalation to stage two as it had previously answered the points the resident had raised.
The landlord confirmed to the resident on 20 August 2021, that it would conduct a full investigation under stage two of its complaint procedure.
Internal landlord correspondence on 7 September 2021, queried whether the resident had been informed about when the works were being completed and if some had been completed. It also asked if the resident had been contacted to see if the stage two complaint could be withdrawn.
The landlord’s records note a conversation between it and the resident on 20 September 2021, which addressed the following:
1. The works required were major, which would not be completed for five years as part of “capital works”. It agreed that some issues needed resolving as they were potentially hazardous.
2. It had contacted its contractor, who inspected the site and aimed to complete some of the works as soon as possible. It had been in contact with the resident throughout and had agreed that escalating to stage two would not achieve the outcome he wanted as the works could not be arranged or carried out within the timescale. It would like to resolve what it could at stage one.
3. It called the resident and explained these thoughts to him. The resident understood the major works and agreed he could not see that escalating at the time would achieve the outcome he was hoping for. He agreed he would withdraw his stage two complaint to allow the landlord time to resolve the issues.
4. If it had taken no action after six weeks, it would reopen the stage two complaint. The resident was satisfied with the action plan, and the landlord advised it would confirm this in an email.
On the same day, the landlord followed up its telephone call with the resident with an email to confirm the complaint withdrawal. On the same day, a “corrective note” was placed on the landlord’s system, stating it would arrange an inspection and repairs.
There was then a gap of one month and six days, on 26 October 2021, a “corrective” action was added to the landlord’s system, asking for a check to be conducted to ensure the required repairs were completed.
The landlord emailed the resident to update him on 3 November 2021, and said its repairs system confirmed that it had completed the repairs to make the areas of concern safe. It appreciated these were temporary measures until the major works were completed, and its projects team would arrange to keep him informed about the major works identified and provide relevant timelines.
The resident responded to the landlord the following day, on 4 November 2021, and expressed dissatisfaction with the completed work. He reminded the landlord that it had previously told him it had completed the repairs when it had not. Out of respect for the landlord’s hard work, he said he had allowed extra time for it to complete the repairs and did not escalate to stage two, but due to its failure to do so, he now wanted to escalate his complaint. He made a Freedom of Information request about the landlord’s budget for the initial proposed works that were to be completed and how much it had spent. He then asked the landlord to provide him with:
1. Information on what works had been completed to make safe the areas concerned.
2. Photographic evidence of the completed works.
3. Confirmation that it would take liability for any harm from the dangers he identified.
The resident advised the landlord, it had not fixed the areas, he had identified. He told the landlord to continue contacting him via email, as he did not wish to be talked out of taking his complaint to stage two.
The landlord acknowledged the resident’s escalation request on 16 November 2021, and issued its stage two response on 7 December 2021. It apologised that the resident was not satisfied with the work it had conducted in the communal areas. It explained:
1. Following his stage one complaint, it had arranged for its contractors to attend and conduct repairs to the lighting, bannisters, glass, and asphalt in the communal areas, but it understood he did not feel the repairs had been completed and requested his complaint be escalated to stage two.
2. As a result, it visited the property on 24 November 2021, to inspect the works carried out and confirmed the lighting had been repaired and all actions that could be taken to make safe the banister and glass had been completed. It also confirmed the asphalt could not be repaired but required replacing.
3. As part of its investigation, it identified the resident’s block was due to have extensive repairs conducted as part of its capital repairs programme. Unfortunately, this work was not scheduled for the next five years. All the work required for the communal areas was extensive and required renewal as part of the major works remit, so it was not financially viable for the landlord to conduct permanent repairs at this time.
4. It assured the resident that the safety of residents was its priority. It had worked hard to ensure the communal areas were safe. It said it had kept the resident updated on the progress of the repairs, but if he wished to discuss them further, it provided him with a named contact.
5. It told the resident it understood this was not the response he wanted, but it was not financially viable for a more permanent solution to be found at the time, and it thanked him for bringing the matter to its attention.
After exhausting the landlord’s complaints process, the resident communicated with the Housing Ombudsman. On 22 July 2022, he informed this Service that the landlord had recently changed the broken glass following his escalation to the Ombudsman. He advised further that the state of the railing remained extremely poor, and he had chased for over a year for the cracked glass and live wires to be rectified.
The Ombudsman wrote to the landlord on 9 June 2023, and asked it to provide any further information such as survey reports which informed its decisions. As at the date of writing of this report, no further information has been provided.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s handling of communal repairs including concerns about health and safety.

The landlord acted positively and demonstrated good practice by offering the resident a named contact to discuss his concerns and by offering him a meeting with the project officer to discuss the works.
The resident asked for a health and safety assessment to be completed in the block, however, there is no evidence the landlord considered doing this. In the Ombudsman’s opinion, given the resident’s concerns, it might have been good practice for this to have been completed, as this might have soothed the resident’s concerns, or even informed it of the works which were required within the block.
The landlord proactively informed the residents of the need for replacements to the handrails, flooring, and ceiling in its letter of 16 December 2020. It was also positive that the landlord explained this to the resident in its email of 28 June 2021 and the reasoning behind the decision to renew rather than repair.

Hanging wires and communal lighting.

The resident described the hanging wires as live wires; however, it is unclear from the evidence whether this was, in fact the case. The resident would not be expected to know if the wires were live, but from his perspective, they should not have been there as they could be a danger to him or others. The landlord should have done more to reassure him about what it was doing to mitigate any risk, if the wires did pose any danger. Nevertheless, what is agreed and acknowledged by both the landlord and resident is that there were hanging wires in the block.
The landlord confirmed it completed tidying the cables in its letter on 16 December 2020. However, the evidence provided by the landlord suggests this was incorrect, as it later acknowledged being aware of the hanging wires following a walkaround. It is unclear when the walkaround took place. There appears to have been a seven-month gap between the landlord confirming it had completed the works in December 2020, and the resident notifying the landlord of the low-hanging wires.
The resident expressed his concerns that the communal repairs presented a health and safety risk to residents. In the Ombudsman’s opinion, the landlord should have assessed if these repairs were in fact a risk to residents, and either raised this as an emergency repair, or as appears to be the case, treat it as a routine repair, but provide reassurance and explanation to the resident, about why it was not treating it as an emergency. There is no evidence that between the resident reporting the hanging cables, and the repair taking place, that the landlord explained why it did not treat this as an emergency repair, or that the cables were not a risk. The delay in responding or not providing its reasons for the delays will have caused the resident additional worry that the building was unsafe. In the Ombudsman’s opinion this was unreasonable.
The landlord failed to complete the repairs to the communal lighting within the timeframes provided in its policy. It stated it became aware of the issue when the resident raised his complaint, but it took the landlord sixteen days to raise the required urgent emergency repairs and an additional four days to complete them. In the Ombudsman’s opinion, this was unreasonable. The failure to complete the repairs promptly posed a safety risk to all residents in the block for longer than was necessary. This would have also added to the resident’s frustration with the landlord and caused him inconvenience and distress on nights when the lighting failed to work. It was however positive that the landlord acknowledged the delays and apologised for them, and inconvenience caused to the resident.

Wooden handrail and glass

The wooden handrail and broken glass are parts of one structure. The landlord explained in its letter to the residents of 16 December 2020, that the handrail required replacing due to its poor condition. As the landlord was aware of this, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, it would have been best practice at this point for a suitably qualified person to assess the condition of the handrail and ensure that it remained safe, and no remedial works were required. From the evidence provided, it is not evident that the landlord did this.
It is unclear if there had been further deterioration to the rail between December 2020, and the resident’s reports. The landlord’s reports say the rail was in poor condition but does not identify the need for it to be made safe. However, once it became aware of the need for repairs, the landlord did not raise the repairs around the damage to the wood or glass for another eighteen days, following the resident’s reporting of the issues. In the Ombudsman’s opinion, this is unreasonable, and it should have addressed safety concerns for residents within the block immediately, in line with its emergency repair timeframe.
Although it said it would look to secure and make safe the handrail, there is no evidence provided to support that the landlord attempted to secure, or make safe, the large holes and splintering around it. This would have escalated the resident’s frustration, especially after he had explained elderly residents and children were living within the block. The landlord should have taken the time to explain to the resident if it decided to treat this as a routine repair as opposed to an emergency, why it did so, and provided updates around what it was doing about the issues the resident raised.
The landlord made the broken glass safe by using tape to protect its integrity. Whilst the Ombudsman appreciates this was a temporary measure to protect the integrity of the glass and stop the shattered glass splintering away, it would have been best practice for it to have explained this to the resident. The landlord could have also considered other methods, such as warning signs to notify people of the damaged glass and to be careful to avoid injury to residents.

Stairwell banister, flooring, and ceiling.

Following the resident’s reports around the perceived danger with the stairwell banister, the landlord failed to act within a reasonable amount of time. The landlord responded 18 days following the resident’s report. In the Ombudsman’s opinion, the insecure banister was a hazard to residents, and it should have assessed if this should have been treated as an emergency repair once it was notified.

The landlord had identified that the communal flooring and ceiling required replacing, and due to the extensive requirement of this, it could not include it in its current schedule of works. It informed the resident that this would be included in planned works in 5 years. The resident continually expressed his concerns about the condition of the flooring and the potential risk that this posed to residents. In the Ombudsman’s opinion, to reassure the resident and itself that these repairs did not pose a risk, it should have had a suitably qualified person carryout an assessment and see if temporary repairs were required. It would have also been best practice to have a plan to monitor the flooring and ceiling for further deterioration, and carryout a risk assessment which it could share with the resident.
The landlord acknowledged that some of the issues required resolving immediately, as they were potentially hazardous, but then failed to address them promptly. Living with these hazardous items caused frustration and distress to the resident and posed a potential risk in the block. This is even more of a concern as the resident had identified children and elderly people were living in the block. Further, the delays with the landlord acting to address the repairs would have also added to the resident’s frustration. Based on this, it is the Ombudsman’s opinion that there has been a failure by the landlord around these repairs.
This Service understands that landlords have limited resources, and planned repair programmes form a part of its maintenance of blocks and wider estates. As such, landlords must ensure resources are spent wisely. However, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, the landlord failed to reassure the resident it had made the items he repeatedly raised as potentially unsafe, that they were in a safe condition. It was unreasonable of the landlord to leave the block in poor repair and potentially unsafe for residents, until it could replace items in the future. The landlord has a responsibility to ensure its property is safe and hazard free and it acknowledged that some of the issues needed resolving as they were potentially hazardous. As such, it should have acted earlier to address the hazardous issues, in line with the resident’s concerns and its policy of ensuring its property did not cause a danger to others.
The fact the landlord planned to have works completed following its conversation with the resident on 20 September 2021, suggests it did not believe the previous works completed in August 2021, made things safe. In the Ombudsman’s opinion, following the works in August 2021, the landlord should have been more proactive and conducted a post-works inspection to ensure the work completed was to a good standard. It is unreasonable that it waited until after the resident escalated his complaint to complete an assessment. This would have added to the resident’s frustrations and lack of trust in the landlord.
Further, its repairs policy allows for major works considered urgent to be brought forward with the permission of a director. From the evidence provided to the Ombudsman, the landlord has not demonstrated that it considered if the matter should have been discussed at a more senior level, given the resident raised on several occasions that he was concerned about the safety of the communal areas, and that someone may injure themselves.
In the Ombudsman’s opinion, given the overall reports of safety issues and its acknowledgement of potential hazards, the need for the outstanding repairs should have been considered as urgent repairs in line with its repairs policy. This would have led to frustration for the resident, inconvenience in having to chase the repairs, and distress with having to live within a perceived unsafe environment.
In summary, the landlord acted positively and demonstrated good practice by offering the resident a named contact to discuss his concerns. It was also positive that it offered to arrange a meeting with a project officer about the works, it explained the need for the replacement parts to the resident and that it acknowledged the delays in addressing the issues raised by the resident in its stage one response.
However, despite this, the landlord had identified that the items were in a poor condition in December 2020. If the items were in good and safe working order, this timeframe although a long time, would have been acceptable, but the landlord should have explained to the residents the items were still safe despite their condition. Once it was notified of potential safety issues surrounding the items, and it found leaving some of the issues was potentially hazardous, it should have acted promptly to ensure they were safe in line with its responsibilities and policy. The landlord has not shown that once it became aware of the potential hazards, it considered exercising its discretion to bring the works forward. When it did complete works to make safe the issues, it failed to adequately reassure the resident that the works it had undertaken had made the situation safe. Based on all the identified failings, the Ombudsman finds there has been maladministration by the landlord in handling the communal repairs to the block, including health and safety considerations.

Window Overhaul Survey

The resident requested information about what was occurring with the repairs identified to his property, following the landlord’s survey as he was waiting for them to be completed. However, the landlord stated in an internal email these were also omitted from the programme and to be done alongside the other omitted elements in the next programme. It appears this was not explained to the resident and an explanation was not provided about this in the landlord’s letter of 16 December 2020, as such the resident had an expectation that the works were still due to be completed. The resident was then not informed they would form part of the next programme until the landlord’s stage one response. In the Ombudsman’s opinion, this was unreasonable as the landlord created an expectation that following the survey, the identified repairs would be subsequently completed.
The window surveys appear to have been completed as a condition survey to feed into any future planned works and was completed for all residents. The landlord has not provided any evidence that this was explained to the resident at the time of the survey. In the Ombudsman’s opinion, it would have been best practice for this to have been done, as it would have allowed it to manage the resident’s expectations on when any repairs would be completed.
Following the survey, the landlord did not have details of the results of identified repairs for the resident’s property and asked him for information about this. In the Ombudsman’s opinion, the fact it had to ask him for details of its survey for his property raises concerns about its record keeping. Further, this service believes, the timeframes and outcome of the survey should have been clearly communicated to the resident and from the evidence provided, it is unclear if this was done. This would have aided the landlord in managing the resident’s expectations.
In summary, the landlord left the resident uninformed about what was occurring with the works identified from the survey and he had to request this information. The landlord originally did not have this information and had to ask the resident for details of results which in the Ombudsman’s opinion, raises concerns about the landlord’s record keeping. There were no timeframes provided to the resident about when the identified works would be completed, until he questioned the survey and was provided a response at stage one of the complaints process, seven months after the survey was completed. As a result, the Ombudsman finds that there was service failure with the landlord’s handling of the window overhaul survey.

Complaint handling

Following the resident’s original escalation to stage two of the landlord’s complaints process, it positively tried to put things right by looking to resolve the repairs highlighted by the resident. However, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, the landlord tried to curtail the resident’s right to escalate his complaint by asking him to withdraw his stage two complaint and this was unfair. He had provided it the opportunity to put things right within the timeframes provided in its stage one response, which it failed to do. As such, it was unreasonable for the landlord to ask the resident to give it another opportunity to put things right, after failing to meet the obligations specified as part of his stage one complaint, when it had already confirmed it had completed the necessary repairs.
The landlord raised the resident’s expectations that it would investigate his complaint and then asked him to withdraw. In the Ombudsman’s opinion, this is not in the spirit of good complaint handling, and the landlord acted outside the Ombudsman’s complaint handling code. Paragraph 5.9 of the code specifies that if all, or part of the complaint is not resolved to the resident’s satisfaction at stage one, it must be progressed to stage two of the landlord’s procedure. As such, because the landlord failed to meet its promises at stage one, it was obligated to progress the resident’s complaint to the next stage following his request. Its contact and request for the resident to withdraw his complaint and provide it with a further opportunity to resolve things at stage one was unacceptable.
In the Ombudsman’s opinion, the landlord could have escalated the resident’s complaint while still taking steps to address any outstanding issues. This would have been best practice rather than asking the resident to withdraw his escalation. Complaints are an opportunity for landlords to learn and as such, landlords should not be trying to discourage them, or further chances to review cases and what went wrong in its management of residents reported issues which led to the complaint.
The landlord’s actions led to a six-week delay in the complaint handling process and further detriment to the resident. The landlord failed to meet his expectations, which led to an increase in his frustration and distress. This then led to a breakdown in communications between the resident and landlord. In the Ombudsman’s opinion, the landlord’s actions were unreasonable and unfair to the resident. As such, the Ombudsman finds there was service failure by the landlord in its complaint handling.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with Paragraph 52 of the Ombudsman’s Scheme, there was maladministration with the landlord’s handling of communal repairs, including concerns about health and safety.
In accordance with Paragraph 52 of the Ombudsman’s Scheme, there was service failure with the landlord’s handling of the window overhaul survey.
In accordance with Paragraph 52 of the Ombudsman’s Scheme, there was service failure with the landlord’s complaints handling.

Reasons

The landlord failed to address repairs in a timely manner once notified of the potential danger they posed. It failed to provide the resident with the correct assurances that the items were safe, or that it had taken appropriate considerations around the safety of the items. It failed to show that it considered escalating the concerns around the potential health and safety risk to a director, for the planned works to be brought forward.
The landlord had to ask the resident for details of its own survey. It provided no evidence that it provided an explanation on when the works were due to be completed. It identified works were required to the resident’s property and raised his expectations on these being completed in line with ongoing works.
The landlord’s request for the resident to withdraw his stage two complaint was unreasonable and unacceptable. This led to a delay in the complaint process, caused the resident frustration and was a missed opportunity to provide the resident with a response to his concerns at an earlier point.

Orders and Recommendations

Orders

Within four weeks of this report, the landlord must:
1. Pay the resident compensation of £550. This comprises:
  1. £350 for the frustration and inconvenience caused to the resident for its handling of the communal repairs.
  2. £100 for the service failure caused to the resident around the window survey.
  3. £100 for its complaint handling failing.
2. Within six weeks of this report, complete an inspection of the communal areas to identify any outstanding repairs which are a health and safety risk, and provide the resident and this service a schedule of outstanding communal repairs with dates of when repairs will be completed.
3. Provide evidence of compliance with these orders.

Recommendation

Where the landlord has completed temporary repairs or determined works to be on hold until the planned programme, provide reassurance to the resident about the safety of the repair and items to be replaced.