Tower Hamlets Homes (202215949)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202215949

Tower Hamlets Homes

24 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

  1. The complaint is about the landlord’s:
    1. Handling of the removal of warm air units in the resident’s property.
    2. Handling of the associated complaint.

Background

  1. The resident is a secure tenant of the landlord, which is a local authority. The property is a three-bedroom flat.
  2. The resident made a report on 15 March 2022 of continuous noise from the property’s heating system. The landlord raised a work order to remove warm air units in the bedrooms and make good the plaster and paint afterwards. On 25 April 2022, a plasterer attended the resident’s property to carry out an inspection to determine what work and materials would be needed.
  3. The resident wrote to the landlord on 25 April 2022, and 9 August 2022, requesting to raise a complaint into how it had handled the issue. He described the elements of the complaint as:
    1. He had received a call from the contractor shortly before the operative arrived on 25 April 2022, to advise it was for an inspection only. The resident felt he was led to believe work would be carried out, and that the contractor was now lying.
    2. He questioned why a further inspection was needed of his property on 25 April 2022, when an inspection had already been done via calls and emails with the housing officer in March 2022, and the work was raised on the back of that.
    3. He found the contractor’s office to be rude and unhelpful when he called it to discuss the issue. He also called the landlord that day and found the staff member he spoke to be rude, unhelpful and also accused him of being “semantic”.
    4. The contractor had told the resident that the painting would be done on 1 August 2022. He contacted the contractor on 29 July 2022, to ensure the painting was going ahead the following day and it told him the appointment had been cancelled.
    5. He found it disingenuous that the landlord stated he was given more than 24-hours’ notice that an appointment had been cancelled as he was only told it was cancelled because he called the contractor the day before.
    6. He reiterated that his time was wasted as he had taken time off of work and had dismantled a large wardrobe so that the works could be carried out, that he was lied to and treated rudely by the landlord’s and contractor’s staff.
    7. As a resolution to the complaint, the resident requested to be compensated for how he had been treated by the landlord and its contractor.
  4. The landlord sent a stage one complaint response to the resident on 23 August 2022, and a stage two complaint response on 15 September 2022. In its responses the landlord:
    1. Accepted that the resident was not notified that the attendance on 25 April 2022 was for an inspection only and apologised. It explained that in some instances the first visit can be an assessment if the contractor needs to familiarise itself with the work to be done, assess the scale of work, the materials needed or if there needed to be an additional operative to carry out the work safely.
    2. Explained there was a delay to the work being completed due to a bees’ nest and a birds’ nest that needed to be removed. Following the removal of the nests the operatives returned on 14 July 2022, and removed the warm air units and plastered the walls.
    3. Stated that a work order for the painting work was raised on 9 August 2022, and the information provided by the contractor that it had been booked for 1 August, and that the appointment had been cancelled, was a mistake. It explained that as there had been no appointment booked for 1 August 2022, it could not be considered a missed appointment and therefore it would not offer compensation. It confirmed that the appointment was arranged for 25 August 2022, and the work was completed.
    4. Noted that the resident had complained about the quality of the finished work, explaining that the walls were not level and smooth and had been done to a very poor standard. It stated that a contractor supervisor would attend on 16 September 2022, to assess the plastering work and he would agree a way forward with the resident.
    5. Informed the resident that it had raised the issue of staff members being rude with their relevant supervisors with a specific request to address the importance of providing residents with prompt information and updates in a professional manner.
  5. In referring the case to this Service, the resident described the outstanding issues of the complaint as the number of appointments it took for the issue to be resolved, that there were missed appointments and the poor quality of plastering to the wall. As a resolution to the complaint, the resident wanted to be compensated for the missed appointments and the inconvenience caused by the length of time it took the matter to be resolved, and how he was treated by the landlord and contractor.
  6. When providing its evidence to this Service for this case, the landlord confirmed that all work had now been completed and that it had reviewed its decision to decline to offer compensation. It stated that it had made the decision to offer the resident £80 compensation, which is broken down as £30 for a missed plastering appointment on 8 November 2022, and £50 for the inconvenience the issue has caused to the resident.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s handling of the removal of warm air units in the resident’s property.

  1. On being informed by the resident of the issues with the heating system, the landlord had a duty to respond in line with the obligations set out in the tenancy agreement and its published policies and procedures.
  2. It is not in dispute that the resident experienced poor communication from the landlord and its contractor as to how the work would proceed following the report made on 15 March 2022. It is basic good practice for a landlord to communicate in a timely and clear manner with its residents in order to manage their expectations. In this case, the landlord did not do so. The resident was not made aware that the appointment on 25 April 2022, was an inspection until a short time before the operative arrived. This late notification caused clear inconvenience to the resident, who had prepared the room in expectation of the work going ahead. Similarly, the landlord’s communication was poor when the resident was misinformed that an appointment had been made for 1 August 2022, and then been cancelled.
  3. While it was reasonable for the landlord not to consider compensation for missed appointments, it should have taken into account the inconvenience caused to the resident by its poor communication and considered offering compensation. This would have been in line with its compensation policy, which states that it will consider awarding compensation to “reflect the nature of the loss, damage, suffering or inconvenience caused to the complainant”. Following the completion of the work, the landlord reviewed its compensation offer. It recognised that there had been one missed appointment in November 2022, as part of the follow-on work, and accepted that the resident should have received compensation for the inconvenience the matter had caused. While its offer of £30 for the missed appointment was reasonable, its offer of £50 for the inconvenience caused to the resident was inadequate in light of the two separate issues he experienced with the appointment on 25 April 2022, and the confusion over the booking of the painting appointment.
  4. In bringing the case to this Service on 20 October 2022, the resident expressed his dissatisfaction with the quality of the finished work. This was accepted by the landlord in its stage two response. It arranged for further work to be undertaken, which was completed on 19 December 2022. It is not clear from the evidence provided that the resident is now satisfied with the quality of the repairs following the completion of the follow-on work. Therefore, it is recommended that the landlord contact the resident, if it has not done so already, to confirm that all work is finished and that he is satisfied with the quality of the repairs.
  5. In raising the complaint, the resident highlighted issues he had with staff members of the landlord and contractor during two telephone calls, which he described the staff members as rude and unhelpful. The resident provided the landlord with the names of the staff members. The landlord then passed the details on to their respective managers to address their conduct and provide training on how to properly respond to tenants’ requests, and to provide the correct information in a professional manner.
  6. This was an appropriate action for the landlord to take as it showed that it took the allegations seriously and raised the resident’s concerns with the staff members’ supervisors to discuss the matter with them directly to ensure its staff were responding to its tenants professionally. It was also appropriate for the landlord to apologise to the resident in its complaint response for the poor customer service he experienced.
  7. The resident highlighted to this Service that he was unhappy about the number of appointments made to resolve the issue. The landlord’s responsive repairs policy states that normal repairs would be completed within twenty working days. Following the plasterer’s inspection on 25 April 2022, the work should have been completed by 18 May 2022. However, it was not completed until 19 December 2022, seven months later.
  8. In this case, it was reasonable that there was a delay and there were multiple appointments during this time. Work stopped due to the discovery of a bees’ nest and a birds’ nest on 28 April 2022. Once these were removed the work commenced in July 2022. The painting took place in August 2022, after the plaster had dried, which was also reasonable. It was reasonable that the landlord had operatives return to assess and redo the plastering and painting when the resident stated he was not satisfied with the quality of work carried out. After the resident refused two appointments in October 2022, the work to rectify what had already been done was carried out over two further appointments, one in November 2022, and the other in December 2022.
  9. While the landlord’s actions overall were reasonable, there was poor communication in regard to confusion over the inspection on 25 April 2022, and the misidentification of painting being booked for 1 August 2022. However, the impact on the resident was minimal. Therefore, a finding of service failure has been found in regard to the landlord’s handling of the repairs.
  10. The landlord’s compensation policy does not give guidance on compensation amounts; therefore, this Service will reference The Ombudsman’s remedies guidance. The remedies guidance (which is available on our website) recommends a payment of £50 to £100 in cases of service failure of a short duration that may not have significantly affected the overall outcome. This includes distress and inconvenience, time and trouble, disappointment, loss of confidence, and delays in getting matters resolved. A payment of £100 that recognised the confusion and inconvenience caused by its poor communication relating to the 25 April 2022, appointment and the arranging of the painting work would be reasonable in the circumstances. This figure is inclusive of the £50 already offered for this aspect.

The landlord’s handling of the associated complaint.

  1. The resident first wrote to the landlord and requested to raise a complaint on 25 April 2022. As per the landlord’s complaints policy, a stage one complaint should be acknowledged within forty-eight hours and a response provided within twenty working days. As such, the complaint should have been acknowledged by 27 April 2022, and a response provided by 23 May 2022. There is no evidence that the landlord acknowledged or responded to this request. It was not until the resident wrote again on 9 August 2022 that a complaint was opened, a delay of nearly three months. This was a failing on the landlord’s part.
  2. Similarly, when the resident explained in his complaint, on 9 August 2022, that he had made the initial complaint on 25 April 2022 and had not received a response, the landlord did not then address this in its subsequent complaint responses. As per this Service’s Complaint Handling Code, landlords must address all points raised in the complaint and provide clear reasons for any decisions, referencing the relevant policy, law, and good practice where appropriate. Because the landlord failed to address this aspect, this too was a failing on the landlord’s part.
  3. Therefore, there has been maladministration by the landlord in its complaint handling and in order to resolve this element of the complaint, additional compensation is warranted. The Ombudsman’s remedies guidance suggests a payment of £100 to £600 in cases of considerable service failure or maladministration by a landlord. Therefore, a payment of £300 that recognised the significant length of time it took the landlord to open a formal complaint and the inconvenience this caused to the resident would be appropriate in the circumstances.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure by the landlord in respect of its handling of the removal of warm air units in the resident’s property.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in respect of its handling of the associated complaint.

Orders

  1. The landlord is ordered to pay the resident a total amount of £430 in compensation, comprised of:
    1. £100 for the inconvenience caused by its poor communication, this is inclusive of the £50 already offered, if this has not already been paid.
    2. £30 for the missed appointment in November 2022, if this has not already been paid.
    3. £300 for its poor complaint handling.
  2. This payment should be made within four weeks of the date of this report. The landlord should update this Service when payment has been made.
  3. The landlord is also ordered to review its staff’s training needs in relation to their application of its complaints policies to prevent a recurrence of its complaints handling failure. This should include the completion of this Service’s free online dispute resolution training for landlords, if this has not been done recently, at https://www.housing-ombudsman.org.uk/landlords/e-learning/. Evidence is to be provided to this Service within four weeks of the date of this report.

Recommendation

  1. It is recommended that landlord contact the resident, if it has not done so already, to confirm that all work is finished and that he is satisfied with the quality of the repairs.