Tower Hamlets Homes (202119292)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202119292

Tower Hamlets Homes

09 September 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

  1. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of repairs to the resident’s wet room.
  2. The Ombudsman has also investigated the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

  1. The resident was a secure tenant of the landlord. The property is a 1-bedroom first floor flat. On 5 September 2022, he became a shared ownership leaseholder of the property. The landlord held no record of vulnerabilities for the resident.
  2. On 8 June 2021, the resident emailed the landlord to report repairs to his wet room, including:
    1. The floor was peeling.
    2. The extractor fan was not working.
    3. The presence of mould.
    4. The disabled chair for the shower was broken.
  3. The resident emailed the landlord on 5 July 2021 to chase an update on his repairs. The landlord replied on 23 July and said that 2 voicemails had been left for him on the 29 June 2021, regarding the repairs and the job had since been closed. The landlord confirmed that new orders had been raised, the chair would be replaced on 10 August 2021 and contractors would contact him to make further appointments.
  4. On 26 July 2021, the resident contacted the landlord to raise a formal complaint. He stated he had not received any voicemails from the landlord regarding his repairs and he wanted to complain about the customer service he had received and the timeliness of the landlord’s responses.
  5. The landlord issued its stage 1 complaint response on 9 August 2021. It apologised that its service had fallen below what he should expect and acknowledged that it failed to respond to his email dated 5 July 2021 in a timely manner. The landlord offered the resident £10 compensation to address this failing.
  6. The landlord also stated it had contacted the resident on 21 June 2021, following his initial service request, to explain that an inspection was needed first and that he would be called on 29 June 2021 between 8am and 1pm.
  7. The resident escalated his complaint on 17 August 2021. He stated the compensation did not adequately address the stress and time involved in chasing the complaint and he requested evidence of contact from the landlord which he disputed had taken place. The resident also complained that appointments by the contractor had been missed with no advance notice.
  8. The landlord issued its stage 2 complaint response on 17 September 2021 and included some evidence of correspondence it had sent to the resident. The landlord again apologised for the delay to one of its replies and again offered £10 compensation. The landlord also stated that it had no record of any missed appointments on its system.
  9. The resident remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s response and brought the complaint to this Service.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

  1. The resident has made a further complaint about the quality of the repairs eventually carried out, which went through the landlord’s formal complaint process at a later date and was also referred to this Service. In the interest of fairness, and to avoid duplication, the scope of this investigation is limited to matters which completed the landlord’s internal complaints procedure on 17 September 2021.

Landlord’s handling of repairs to the resident’s wet room

  1. The resident became a shared ownership leaseholder on 5 September 2022. However, the repair requests and subsequent complaint were brought to the landlord’s attention before the resident became a leaseholder. Therefore, under the terms of the resident’s tenancy agreement, the landlord was responsible for repairs to the resident’s wet room.
  2. Following the resident’s reports of repairs on 8 June 2021, the landlord has stated it responded the resident on 21 June 2021 to inform him that an inspection needed to be carried out to gather further details before the repairs could be progressed. It stated it advised the resident during this contact he would be called on 29 June 2021 between 8am and 1pm to discuss the matter further.
  3. It is unclear what means of communication the landlord used to contact the resident. However, this Service has not been provided with any record to confirm this communication was made with the resident. The resident disputes that any contact was made on this date. The fact that the resident made further contact with the landlord on 5 July 2021 to chase up his service request suggests it is reasonable to conclude that no contact had been received.
  4. The landlord’s own complaint responses refer to a service level agreement in which it will acknowledge all requests within 10 working days. In the absence of any evidence to the contrary, the landlord failed to respond to the resident’s repair request within 10 working days.
  5. The landlord stated it contacted the resident by phone on 29 June 2021 at 11:41am and 12:03pm, regarding his repairs. It recorded that on both occasions a voicemail was left for the resident and the job was closed following these calls. The resident also disputes that these voicemails were left on his phone.
  6. While the landlord has provided evidence to suggest that the voicemails were left, it has provided no rationale as to why the repairs were closed and it did not inform the resident of this. Given the resident communicated with the landlord via email, it would have been reasonable for the landlord to contact him by the same means to inform him of its intention to close the repairs. By not doing this, the landlord has failed to manage the resident’s expectations and will have damaged the landlord/tenant relationship.
  7. At the point of the resident chasing the repairs with the landlord on 5 July 2021, 19 working days had passed. The landlord’s repair policy states that normal routine repairs will be completed within 20 days. With no knowledge that the job had been cancelled, the resident believed his repairs would not be completed in time.
  8. The landlord did not respond to the resident until 23 July 2021, when it informed him that the job had been closed following the voicemails that had been left for him. The landlord rebooked the jobs and informed the resident that a contractor would be attending to replace the chair on 10 August 2021, and further appointments would be made for the flooring and ventilation system. The landlord also advised that due to the ongoing Covid pandemic, there could be delays in carrying out some repairs.
  9. In relation to the mould, the landlord advised the resident to recontact it once the extractor fan had been fixed, to book in a mould wash. This was unfair of the landlord because it had already been given notice that there was mould present. It would have been reasonable for the landlord to arrange the appointment once the works to the extractor fan were finished, rather than expecting the resident to make a duplicate report.
  10. On 26 July 2021, the resident raised a formal complaint. His complaint was not in relation to the repairs themselves, but down to the perceived lack of response to his repairs request and the “very poor” customer service he had received. The resident received text messages from the landlord the same day to inform him that the repairs to the wet room floor and ventilation system would be carried out on 5 August 2021 between 8am and 10:29am.
  11. The resident states that the contractor did not attend his property on 5 August 2021, and no advance notice was given to him. He also received a text from the landlord on 11 August 2021, to confirm an appointment would take place that day, but no contractor attended. The resident states he contacted the landlord on 11 August 2021 and was informed that the repairs had been completed. The resident states he then received a call from the contractor, who confirmed the repairs had not been attended as they were waiting for funding from the landlord. This shows there was a breakdown in communication between the landlord and its contractor.
  12. The resident also received a voicemail from the landlord later that day to book a repairs inspection. It had been 46 working days since the resident had reported his repairs which had not completed the repairs, or an inspection arranged if that was necessary. The landlord had deviated from its repairs policy and while this Service appreciates the impact the COVID-19 pandemic had on the landlord’s ability to respond, the repairs in question had previously been scheduled to take place. Furthermore, the resident was only made aware of the delays to his repairs when he took the time and trouble to follow them up.
  13. In its stage 1 complaint response, dated 9 August 2021, the landlord apologised for the delay to the resident’s email dated 5 July 2021 and agreed it failed to respond within 10 working days, as was in line with its service level agreement. However, the landlord stated that his initial repair request had been responded to in a timely manner (9 working days) by the contact it made with him on 21 June 2021. The landlord also stated that because of the resident’s complaint, it had put measures in place to address the backlog of emails to ensure residents received timely responses in line with its service level agreement.
  14. The resident escalated his complaint on 7 August 2021 and requested the landlord supply him with evidence of the contact made to him on 21 and 29 June 2021, which he disputed had occurred. He also complained about the 2 missed appointments. While the landlord acknowledged his complaint on 2 occasions, it provided no update regarding the outstanding repairs.
  15. On 31 August 2021, the resident contacted the landlord to chase the status of his repairs as he had not heard from the landlord or the contractor since 11 August. This suggests that despite the complaint made by the resident, the landlord’s communication was still ineffective, and at times, non-existent.
  16. The landlord received an email from the contractor on 16 September 2021 to say that no appointments had been missed. Internal landlord emails suggest the resident was contacted by phone on 11 August 2021 and informed him that the jobs had been cancelled and rebooked. This would appear to be the voicemail left for the resident hours after the repair was due to be completed.
  17. The landlord’s repairs policy states that it will compensate residents with a £10 voucher for a missed appointment, including those appointments that a contractor was due to attend. This Service has not been provided with evidence of the repairs being completed or the resident being contacted to say the repairs would not take place in advance. In the absence of this information, this Service cannot conclude that the landlord attended those appointments or cancelled them in a timely manner.
  18. The landlord’s stage 2 response, dated 17 September 2021, acknowledged the same failing as its stage 1 response and apologised again for failing to meet its service level agreement. In relation to the missed appointments, the landlord stated that its system did not show any missed appointments and signposted the resident to a link to report them so they could be investigated further.
  19. At the time of the stage 2 response being issued, the landlord had not contacted the resident regarding the outstanding repairs since he chased them on 31 August 2021. The landlord failed to respond to this request within 10 working days, in line with its service level agreement. This was a significant failing given the reassurance the landlord had given in its stage 1 response that measures were now in place to stop this happening.
  20. It was also noted that all the repairs raised by the resident in June 2021 remained outstanding. Internal landlord emails suggest that the work to the wet room was a larger job and required a full refurb rather than individual repairs. It is not clear from the documentation provided when this was established but it was likely to be on or around 11 August 2021 when the initial repair jobs were cancelled. While this Service accepts that larger jobs require longer timescales to complete, communication with the resident was still vital given he had been waiting over 3 months for the repairs to be completed.
  21. A landlord should have systems in place to maintain accurate records of repair reports, responses, investigations, and communications. Good record keeping is vital to evidence the action a landlord has taken, and failure to keep adequate records indicates that the landlord’s processes are not operating effectively. The landlord’s staff should be aware of its record management policy and procedures and adhere to these.
  22. As part of this investigation the landlord was asked to provide documents, correspondence, and any other evidence relevant to the resident’s complaint. Only limited information was received, which did not include significant items such as records of contact made with the resident and evidence of appointments being cancelled in a timely manner.
  23. Due to the gaps in the evidence provided by the landlord, the Ombudsman is unable to conclude that the landlord acted in line with its obligations or satisfactorily managed the resident’s expectations at the time. 
  24. Therefore, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of repairs to the resident’s wet room in its failure to communicate relevant information to the resident in a timely manner. An order has been made for the landlord to pay £200 compensation to the resident, consisting of:
    1. £150 for the distress, time and trouble caused in pursuing this matter.
    2. £50 for 2 missed appoints (2 x £25).

This amount is calculated in line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance.

Complaint handling

  1. A landlord’s complaint handling process is an essential aspect of its overall service delivery provision. An effective complaints process will enable a landlord to identify and address service delivery issues in a timely manner. It will also provide learning for future service provision. 
  2. On 26 July 2021, the resident raised his complaint with the landlord by email regarding the “very poor” customer service he had received and its failure to respond to one of his previous emails. He disputed that he had received any voicemails from the landlord regarding his repairs and requested evidence of such calls being made.
  3. The landlord acknowledged his complaint The following day, in line with its complaints policy that states it will acknowledge a complaint within 48 hours of it being received.
  4. The landlord issued its stage 1 complaint response on 9 August 2021, 9 working days after the complaint was received. This was in line with the landlord’s complaint policy that states a stage 1 complaint response will be issued within 20 working days.
  5. In its response, the landlord agreed that the service the resident had received on this occasion had fallen below what would normally be expected. It stated that the resident’s initial service request, dated 8 June 2021 was responded to within 10 working days in line with its service level agreement acknowledged. However, the landlord acknowledged that it took 14 days to respond the resident’s email, dated 5 July 2021, and offered £10 compensation in recognition of the distress, inconvenience, time, and trouble caused to the resident in pursuing the matter.
  6. The landlord’s compensation policy states that the level of financial compensation will be determined by the nature of the complaint and needs to consider all the particular facts of the case. It also recognises that a payment for time and trouble would normally fall within the range of £25 to £250. By offering £10, the landlord deviated from its own compensation policy.
  7. The Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code, in force at the time, set out that responses must address all points raised within the complaint. The landlord failed to acknowledge the resident’s request for evidence of the voicemails it had left. This was a failing as this formed part of the resident’s original complaint.
  8. On 17 August 2021, the resident escalated his complaint with the landlord. He disputed that he had been contacted on 21 June 2021 and stated he had received no voicemails on 29 June 2021. The resident also stated that 2 appointments had been missed by the contractor with no prior notice being given. In relation to the compensation offer, the resident stated it did not reflect the time wasted and stress caused. He requested the compensation was paid at £50 a day from 5 to 23 July 2021 (£900), for the delay to responding to his email and further compensation was requested for repairs not being completed and missed appointments.
  9. The landlord issued its stage 2 complaint response on 19 September 2021, 22 working days after the escalation request had been made. The landlord’s complaint policy states that a stage 2 response will be issued within 20 working days unless an extended timescale is agreed with the resident. This is in line with the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code in place at the time, which states that the 20 working days runs from the point of escalation. The landlord failed to arrange an extension with the resident as per its policy and was this was a failing.
  10. While the stage 2 response included evidence of calls made to the resident on 29 June 2021, it failed to acknowledge that the resident disputed the landlord had contacted him on 21 June 2021. This was a significant failing and a breach of the Complaint Handling Code in force at the time. The disputed communication formed part of the basis of the resident’s escalation.
  11. The landlord did acknowledge the resident’s reports of missed contractor appointments and stated that its own records showed no evidence of missed appointments. The landlord advised the resident to report the missed appointments online so they could be considered further. This was unfair of the landlord given it had accepted this aspect of the resident’s complaint and reported on it in its stage 2 response. It would have been reasonable for the landlord to follow this up on resident’s behalf to provide a timelier solution to his complaint. This was a further failing.
  12. The landlord again apologised for the shortcomings in the service given and stated that it was unable to meet his compensation request of £900 for delays to responding to his email. It was reasonable of the landlord to decline this request as any money paid would come from public funds. In these circumstances, the resident’s request was disproportionate to the matter for which he was asking to be compensated. However, the landlord failed to revisit its compensation policy considering the extra time that had been taken to pursue the complaint.
  13. While the landlord’s acknowledgement and stage 1 response was issued in a timely manner, its stage 2 response was 2 days late. This was only a minor deviation from its policy and could have been avoided by communicating with resident in advance to extend the response time. However, the landlord failed to adequately address aspects of the resident’s complaint in both its responses. This has caused the resident further distress and inconvenience, undermined the resident’s confidence in the complaint system and has delayed the closure of this complaint.
  14. Therefore, there was maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling. An order has been made for the landlord to pay £100 compensation to the resident for the distress, inconvenience, time, and trouble caused, in line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of repairs to the resident’s wet room.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Orders

  1. Within 4 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord is ordered to:
    1. Provide the resident with a written apology for the failings identified in this report.
    2. Pay directly to the resident a total of £300 compensation, made up of:
      1. £200 for the distress, time and trouble caused by its failures in handling of repairs to the resident’s wet room.
      2. £100 for the distress, inconvenience, time, and trouble caused by its failures in complaint handling.
  2. The landlord should reply to this Service with evidence of compliance with the orders within the time scales set out above.