We are currently experiencing technical difficulties with our online webform, please accept our apologies for any inconvenience caused. All other contact methods remain open as we work to resolve the issue. Contact us

Tower Hamlets Homes (202214086)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202214086

Tower Hamlets Homes

2 February 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 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 the resident’s request for his windows to be replaced, and the subsequent level of compensation offered for this.

Background

  1. The resident is a tenant of a landlord of a sixth-floor flat in a block. The landlord has not recorded any vulnerabilities for him on its system.
  2. The resident reported to the landlord on 2 March 2022 that the windows in his bedroom, living room and kitchen were not opening, and that some of these were missing their safety catches. It attended this on 11 March 2022, and the repair order was closed on 25 March 2022, so that a follow-on order could be raised and its contractor could obtain a quote to replace the windows. This was attended on 12 May 2022, and it was determined that all of the windows in the block required replacement. Therefore, the job was referred to the landlord’s major works department on 18 May 2022. The resident then chased it on 20 and 26 May 2022, as the works remained outstanding and he had not received an update.
  3. On 6 July 2022, the resident made a stage one complaint to the landlord, as he had discovered on that day that the job order to replace his windows had been cancelled without him being informed, but he was not given a reason for this. He requested that it replace his windows as soon as possible, as these made a noise which he reported was affecting his sleep and anxiety, for which he took medication, and because some his neighbours had received new windows when he had not.
  4. Following the complaint, the landlord raised another job order on 11 July 2022 to inspect the resident’s windows. Furthermore, it called him on 13 July 2022 to inform him that the issue had been referred to the major works department, which had not yet provided it with an update. The resident made a further report to the landlord on 18 July 2022 that some of the windows would not lock.
  5. The landlord’s stage one complaint response of 20 July 2022 acknowledged that its service to the resident had fallen short of its usual standards. It explained that the job order had been cancelled, as the contractors had found that the windows were to be replaced as part of a major works scheme in 2024-25, and that certain repairs might be put on hold pending a major works programme. The landlord nevertheless confirmed that it had responded to the resident’s report of his windows not locking by organising a further inspection of these on 28 July 2022 to determine which repairs to these could currently be conducted. It also offered him £50 compensation in recognition of his time and trouble in pursuing the matter, as well as the distress and inconvenience caused to him by this.
  6. The resident then escalated the complaint to the final stage of the landlord’s complaints procedure on 25 July 2022, as he was dissatisfied that the replacement of his windows had been cancelled, and he did not wish to wait until 2024-25 to receive a replacement. He reported that the windows and his balcony door did not lock, and that the windows would not stay shut by themselves. The resident therefore sought a replacement for these before the major works programme, and an increase in the amount of compensation offered, as the issue had been ongoing since March 2022.
  7. The landlord’s contractor attended the resident’s windows again on 28 July 2022, and they requested that it perform a further inspection of these for his reports of noise from the windows and the fact that these were part of an older, discontinued frame system, which it did on 16 August 2022. The landlord found that there were minor repairs that needed to be undertaken, including fitting nuts and bolts to the window stays, replacing a lock that had been painted over, and installing a draught excluder to help prevent the noise. These repairs were performed on 19 August 2022, however the resident requested that the draught excluder be removed, as he was unhappy with how stiff the windows had become when this was installed.
  8. The landlord’s final stage complaint response of 22 August 2022 maintained its previous decision that it would not replace the windows prior to the major works scheme in 2024-25, and it apologised that the resident was initially told that new windows would be installed. It explained that it had reminded its operatives to ensure that only accurate information was passed on to residents when they conducted repairs. The landlord also increased the offer of compensation to the resident from £50 to £120, in recognition of the delays and the ongoing nature of the issue, as well as a further £30 voucher for a missed appointment, and it apologised to him for the shortcomings in its service.
  9. The resident subsequently referred his complaint to this Service, as he was unhappy that his windows would not be replaced prior to the major works scheme in two financial years’ time, and with the ongoing effect that the noise made by the windows was having on his sleep, and on his mental and physical ill-health. He sought an increased level of compensation of £1,000, and for his windows to be replaced sooner.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

  1. It is of concern that the resident has reported his disturbed sleep, and the subsequent effect on his mental and physical ill-health, as a result of the noise from his windows. While we do not doubt his comments about the effect of the events in his case on his health, this Service is unable to determine liability or award damages for ill-health because we do not have the authority or expertise to do so, and so this is outside the scope of this investigation to consider. However, we have considered the general distress and inconvenience which the situation has caused the resident.
  2. Following the referral of the resident’s complaint to this Service, he has requested that our investigation of his complaint also consider his increased electricity bills that he reported experiencing as a result of the draught from his windows. This issue was nevertheless not brought to the attention of the landlord during its internal complaints procedure and, as such, cannot be considered in this report. However, it has been recommended below that the landlord invite the resident to provide it with evidence of his increased energy bills due to draughts from his windows, for it to consider and respond to these in line with its redress and compensation policy.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for his windows to be replaced, and the subsequent level of compensation offered for this

  1. As per the resident’s tenancy agreement, the landlord is responsible for keeping the structure of his property in repair. Furthermore, its responsive repairs policy outlines that the replacement or repair of a window, where there are no safety concerns, is a normal priority repair, and should be completed within 20 working days. This also states that, where repairs are due to be covered by an imminent cyclical or planned maintenance programme, the resident will be informed of this, and the repair postponed until then.
  2. The resident had initially reported his concerns about his windows on 2 March 2022. The landlord acted appropriately by inspecting his property on 11 March 2022, as this was within the 20-working-day timeframe specified by its responsive repairs policy. Following this inspection, however, it did not provide any follow-up communication to the resident on the status of his repair. He therefore had to chase the landlord about this, including on 20 and 26 May 2022, and there is no evidence to demonstrate that it responded to him about this at the time, which is likely to have caused him further inconvenience in addition to the condition of his windows.
  3. As social landlords have limited budgets to use for the benefit of all residents, it can be reasonable for a landlord to carry out works to replace elements of the property, including windows, as part of a planned programme of works rather than on an ad-hoc basis. This is because it may be more practical and more economical to do so. This is unless the item in question is not in repair and poses an immediate risk to the resident.
  4. In this case, the landlord determined that the resident’s window replacement work would be carried out as part of the major works cycle in 2024-25, and opted to perform interim repairs to the windows in the meantime in response to his reports about their condition. As this decision was based on its staff’s and contractors’ inspections of 11 March and 12 May 2022, it was appropriate for it to rely on their expertise and experience when determining this, in the absence of any other expert evidence to the contrary, and in light of the fact that its responsive repairs policy permitted it to do so.
  5. However, when the landlord identified that it would not replace the resident’s windows ahead of the planned major works in 2024-25, it should have communicated this decision to him under the responsive repairs policy, and explored alternative solutions to address his concerns, at the time.It nevertheless failed to do this, and hehad to chaseitaboutthis after he first reported thathis windowswere not opening, and were missing safety catches,until his stage one complaint to it of 6 July 2022.
  6. In the landlord’s stage one complaint response, it acknowledged that its service provision had fallen below its usual standard, and it offered the resident £50 compensation in acknowledgement of his time and trouble in pursing the matter. While it acted reasonably in offering an apology and compensation to him, it failed to outline how it would prevent similar failings from occurring again in the future. Therefore, it has been recommended below to review its staff’s and contractors’ training needs with regard to their communication with residents about future major works to ensure that residents receive prompt and clear information about these, and the status of any related outstanding responsive repairs.
  7. The resident reported that the landlord had informed him that his windows needed replacing because repair work would not resolve the reported issues with these. Furthermore, its final stage complaint response of 22 August 2022 apologised that he had initially been informed that it would replace his windows, and maintained that the windows would be replaced as part of the 2024-25 major works scheme. It was therefore appropriate that the landlord apologised for the incorrect information provided. Moreover, it reminded its contractors of the importance of sharing accurate repairs information with residents, which was a reasonable action for it to take to prevent future occurrences of this issue.
  8. It would nevertheless have been appropriate for the landlord to have promptly attended the outstanding responsive repairs to the resident’s windows once it had identified that the replacement works were not going ahead soon. Furthermore, once the responsive repairs that he had raised had been identified on 12 May 2022, it was required to attend these repairs within 20 working days, as per its responsive repairs policy. Instead, the landlord took 69 working days to do so on 19 August 2022, which was a failing on its part, and resulted in further distress and inconvenience to the resident.
  9. It is also of concern that the landlord previously took 48 working days from the resident’s initial report of outstanding repairs to his windows on 2 March 2022 until 12 May 2022 to identify that all of the windows in his block required replacement, instead of within its responsive repairs policy’s 20-working-day timescale. It was therefore reasonable that it apologised in its final stage complaint response for the ongoing nature of the repairs, and increased its offer of compensationfrom £50 to £120 in recognition of its delay in performing the repairs, as well as awarding him a further £30 voucher for a missed appointment.
  10. The resident was unhappy with the draught excluder that was installed on 19 August 2022 to address his concerns about noise, as he found that this made the windows stiff to re-open, and so the landlord removed this at his request. Although it was appropriate for it to have installed this, to try and address his ongoing reports regarding the noise generated from the window, and as a reasonable interim measure to help to prevent further distress while he waited for the window replacement. The landlord has therefore been recommended below to contact the resident to offer to return to re-install the draught excluder to address the noise from his windows.
  11. The landlord’s responsive repairs policy additionally states that it may be necessary for it to bring major works forward, and that these can be considered urgent when they pose a significant risk to occupants or vulnerable residents. It is nevertheless noted that, despite the resident reporting to it that he had vulnerabilities as part of his complaint, it did not record any for him or request that he provide details and evidence of these to it, during the complaint process.
  12. While the resident also did not provide details and evidence of his vulnerabilities at his own initiative, the landlord should have requested that he provide this information to it, so that it could determine whether the repairs posed a significant risk to him so that the window replacement could be brought forward as urgent. It has therefore been recommended below to invite him to provide details and evidence of his health conditions and vulnerabilities to it, for it to consider and respond to in relation to his reports of the noise produced by his windows.
  13. Where there are acknowledged failings and remedies are awarded for these by a landlord, the role of this Service is to consider whether the redress offered by the landlord put things right, and resolved the resident’s complaint satisfactorily in all the circumstances of the case. The determination takes into account whether its offer of redress was in line with our dispute resolution principles to be fair, put things right and learn from outcomes.
  14. In this case, the landlord acknowledged that, during its handling of the resident’s reports, there was a delay in performing the window repairs, poor communication on its part, and times in which it provided him with incorrect information. In view of this, it apologised and offered him £120 compensation plus a £30 missed appointment voucher.
  15. This was in line with the landlord’s redress and compensation policy’s recommendations, which outlines that financial compensation from £25 for time and trouble, and from £200 per year for distress and inconvenience, may be offered. Its responsive repairs policy also recommends that it award a £10 voucher as compensation for a missed appointment. Moreover, this Service’s remedies guidance recommends compensation from £100 for failures by the landlord that adversely affected the resident. In addition, it showed some learning in his case, as it reminded its contractors of the importance of sharing accurate repairs information with residents. These steps amounted to reasonable redress in the circumstances.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 53(b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord has offered redress to the resident prior to investigation which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, resolves the complaint satisfactorily.

Recommendations

  1. It is recommended that the landlord:
    1. Re-offer the £120 compensation and £30 voucher that it previously awarded the resident, if he has not received these already.
    2. Invite the resident to submit details and evidence of his health conditions and vulnerabilities to it, for it to consider and respond to in relation to his reports of the noise produced by his windows.
    3. Invite the resident to provide it with evidence of his increased energy bills due to draughts from his windows, for it to consider and respond to these in line with its redress and compensation policy.
    4. Review its staff’s and contractors’ training needs with regard to their communication with residents about future major works to ensure that residents receive prompt and clear information about these, and the status of any related outstanding responsive repairs.
    5. Contact the resident to offer to return to re-install the draught excluder to address the noise from his windows.