Tower Hamlets Homes (202112548)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202112548

Tower Hamlets Homes

28 January 2022

 

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 complaint is about the landlord’s handling of a repair to the resident’s bedroom window.

Background and summary of events

  1. The resident is a tenant of the landlord. The property is a one-bedroom flat.
  2. The landlord’s repairs records show that on 8 February 2021 the resident reported that the sash windows in his bedroom and lounge were not functioning properly. An appointment was made for 22 February 2021.
  3. On 22 February 2021 the landlord’s records note that its contractors had repaired the lounge window, and ordered glider springs for the bedroom window with a lead time of 6 weeks.
  4. On 13 April 2021 the landlord’s repair records note that the contractors had returned to the property and replaced two springs.
  5. On 25 May 2021 the landlord’s records show that the resident reported that the bedroom window was not working again.
  6. On 2 or 4 June 2021 (the records are inconsistent on the specific date) the landlord’s records show that the contractors made the window safe and ordered two torso springs.
  7. The landlord has explained that the resident contacted it on 21 June and 28 June 2021 to chase up the repair, as he had not received any contact.
  8. On 29 June 2021 the contractor advised the resident that it was awaiting parts.
  9. The landlord’s records show that the resident contacted the landlord by email on 9 July to enquire whether there was any update, and to request that a complaint be opened if there was no update. He explained that it had been over six weeks, and that he had been left unable to open the bedroom window to circulate fresh air.
  10. The landlord’s records show that the resident contacted the landlord again on 14 July 2021 as he had not received a response to the 9 July email. He enquired whether a complaint had been opened, and explained that the time frame was unacceptable, particularly as it was summer, and he needed to be able to open the window to circulate air and to ventilate rooms due to covid.
  11. The landlord opened a complaint on 14 July 2021. It issued its stage one response on 29 July 2021. It apologised for the delay in updating the resident, and acknowledged the frustration that had caused him. It advised that, following the complaint being raised, it had contacted its contractors. They had advised that the parts had now been delivered and they would contact the resident directly to arrange an appointment.
  12. The landlord explained it had reminded the contractor of the importance of regular updates when delays are encountered. It apologised for the poor service the resident had received, and offered £50 compensation to cover the time and trouble the resident had spent pursuing the matter, as well as the distress and inconvenience caused.
  13. The landlord’s records show that after the contractor arranged an appointment with the resident for 3 August 2021, the resident emailed the landlord on the afternoon of 3 August 2021 to advise that when the contractors had arrived that morning, they discovered the supplier had sent the wrong springs and they were unable to complete the job. The resident reiterated that it was imperative that he was able to open his bedroom window freely to allow fresh air to circulate. He asked when the correct parts would be available, how soon the repair could take place and whether the landlord was able to contact the contractor to get the job expedited. He asked that the complaint be escalated.  He also stated that he wanted a higher level of compensation and suggested a rebate of one month’s rent in compensation for the “inconvenience, stress and the lack of fresh air in [his] room”.
  14. On 5 August 2021 the landlord’s records show that the landlord emailed the resident to advise him that, due to the pandemic the contractor was experiencing problems sourcing the correct parts and that they should be available in 4-8 weeks.
  15. The resident replied the same day and said that this delay was unacceptable. He asked when he would receive an acknowledgment for his request for his complaint to be escalated to stage two.
  16. The landlord’s records show that it sent another email to the resident on 5 August acknowledging his escalation request. The email also advised that it would also refer the case to its Repairs Team to see if there was anything else they could do to resolve the resident’s complaint and requests.
  17. Also on 5 August 2021, the landlord’s records show that it emailed the contractor asking what date the original parts had been ordered after the problem was identified on 2 June 2021, how the wrong parts had been ordered, why the replacement parts were taking so long, and whether another supplier could be used instead. The contractor responded that its glazier had originally ordered the parts on 29 June 2021 due to waiting to place a minimum order amount. They advised that the glazier had ordered the correct part, but that the supplier had sent a substitute as they were out of stock of the requested part. They explained that the glazier had now found another supplier and delivery was due the week commencing 16 August 2021.
  18. The landlord’s repair records show that the window repair was completed on 24 August 2021.
  19. On 26 August 2021 the landlord emailed the resident saying that as the contractors had now completed the repair it was able to recalculate its compensation offer. It explained that based on £10 per week for the time between the parts being ordered on the 29 June 2021 and the repair being completed on 24 August 2021, it would offer him £70 (an internal email confirms that this amount was in error, and should have been £80 for the eight-weeks taken). The landlord also acknowledged three missed appointments that the resident had reported and offered £30 compensation for them. It is not apparent whether these missed appointments are in relation to the window repair or another matter. The revised compensation of £100.00 replaced the previous offer of £50
  20. The records further show that the resident emailed a response to the landlord stating that he would accept the separate £30 compensation “purely for the missed appointments” but that with regards to the complaint about the window repair, he did not think that £100 was a fair offer and that he would wait for response from the official Stage 2 investigation, that was currently being conducted and was due by 31 of August 2021. He stated “Once I get this letter and see what compensation the independent officer offers, hopefully something more reasonable is offered, I will make a decision whether to escalate my complaint to the Housing Ombudsman Service or not. regarding this”.
  21. On 2 September 2021 the landlord issued its stage two response. It explained that the resident originally reported a problem with his window on 8 February 2021 and repairs were completed on 13 April 2021. However, on 25 May 2021 the resident reported that the window was not working again. An appointment was arranged for 2 June 2021. The landlord apologised that after the problem was identified on 2 June 2021, neither the landlord nor the contractor kept the resident informed. It advised that it had reminded the contractor to ensure that residents are kept informed. An appointment was made for 3 August 2021, however it explained that the reason the repair was not able to be completed on that date was because the supplier had delivered substitute springs, despite the correct springs being ordered originally. The substitute springs did not meet the required specification and therefore, the repair could not be completed. The landlord acknowledged that although this was not through any failing by the contractor, it had caused inconvenience to the resident, and it apologised. It noted that the repair was finally completed on 24 August 2021 using parts sourced from another supplier.
  22. The landlord stated “I appreciate that it has taken a considerable length of time to repair the defective window. However, it is evident that [the landlord] and [the contractor] took appropriate action when you first reported the defective window in February 2021. Regrettably, you experienced issues with the window approximately six weeks after the repair was carried out.” It offered a total of £130 compensation. (£10 per week from the date the part was ordered till the date the repair was completed which amounted to £80 plus £50 in recognition of the time and trouble in pursuing the repair.) The landlord gave details of how to take the complaint to the housing ombudsman if the resident remained dissatisfied.
  23. The resident contacted this Service, as he remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s response and did not think that the compensation amount of £130 was a fair amount. He advised that he would appreciate this Service making any necessary recommendations to the landlord to ensure that what happened to him does not happen to anybody else.

Assessment and findings

  1. In accordance with the tenancy agreement and the landlord’s repair guide, the landlord was obliged to repair the resident’s window. Under the landlord’s repair policy, the repair was classed as a routine repair and as such should be resolved within 20 working days.
  2. Although the landlord’s repairs policy states that it will compensate £10 for any missed repair appointment, neither its repair nor compensation policies set out any other specific levels of compensation.
  3. The resident first reported problems with the windows in his bedroom and lounge on 8 Feb 2021. The windows were made safe on 22 February 2021 and replacement parts were ordered. The repairs were completed on 13 April 2021.
  4. When the contractor inspected the window on 2 June 2021 (after the resident’s report on 25 May), they identified that a different part needed to be replaced. There is no indication that this part was defective on the first visit in February 2021, so this appears to be a new issue.
  5. There is no evidence showing that the contractor or landlord gave the resident a potential timeframe for the replacement part to be ordered and the repair completed until 29 June 2021, after he had chased the matter on 21 and 28 June, explaining that he could not open the window due to the outstanding repair.
  6. On 29 June 2021 the contractor contacted the resident to advise that they were awaiting parts. Although this was not mentioned to the resident at the time, it later transpired that the glazier had only ordered the parts that day due to the need for a minimum order size with the supplier. It is not apparent when the contractor became aware of the delay, but the extent of it was significant, and good practice would have been for the resident to be properly updated sooner than he was, and without him needing to chase the issue. There is no evidence of such an update.
  7. In its complaint response, issued 28 July 2021 the landlord apologised for the delay in updating the resident and offered £50 compensation for the “sub-standard” service. It also contacted the contractor to confirm when the part would arrive, and subsequently notified the resident that it had arrived. In that respect, and in the circumstances of it not being known at that point that the incorrect part would be delivered, the response was reasonable.
  8. After the appointment on 3 August 2021, when the contractor realised the wrong part had been provided, the resident asked for his complaint to be escalated, and for clarification on how much longer the repair would take.
  9. The landlord promptly updated the resident on 5 August 2021, explaining it estimated another 4-8 weeks would be needed to obtain the correct parts, the delay was due to the impact of covid on supplies. The landlord also opened its stage two investigation process and emailed the contractor asking how the wrong parts had been ordered, why the replacement parts were taking so long and whether another supplier could be used instead. It also asked when the original parts were ordered following the visit on 2 June 2021. These questions were proportionate and relevant and addressed the points the resident had raised, showing that the landlord understood the urgency of the matter and the resident’s obvious frustration.
  10. The contractor explained how the error with the parts had occurred, and confirmed when it expected to receive the part. The repair was completed a short time after.
  11. In its stage two response, the landlord apologised for the lack of communication from itself and the contractor, and advised the steps it had taken with its contractor to ensure proper updates and communication was provided to tenants. It apologised for the inconvenience caused by the delays, and offered compensation that was partly based on the length of time between the landlord ordering the part on 29 June 2021 and the repair being completed on 24 August 2021. The total amount of compensation offered was £130. This comprised £80 for the eight-week delay from the date the part was ordered to when it was completed and £50 in recognition of the resident’s time and trouble.
  12. The landlord’s response was reasonable as it acknowledged its failings, apologised for them and took action to ensure that it would learn from them in future. It also offered compensation for the impact of the failings.
  13. The inconvenience experienced and frustration expressed by the resident to the landlord are understandable in the circumstances he was in. Nonetheless, the compensation offered by the landlord, £80 for the delay, £50 for inconvenience was in line with what the Ombudsman would expect in instances of service failure resulting in some impact but of short duration. Along with the other steps it took to remedy the complaint and learn from it, these were suitable remedies to its service failings.

Determination (decision)

  1. In accordance with paragraph 55 (b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord has made an offer of redress prior to investigation which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, resolves the complaint satisfactorily.

Reasons

  1. The landlord acknowledged its repair delays and communication failings, sought to improve from the mistakes, apologised, and offered a proportionate level of compensation for the delays in it completing the bedroom window repair.