Tower Hamlets Homes (202228598)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202228598

Tower Hamlets Homes

11 October 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

The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of reports of a leak, pigeon infestation and a request for scaffolding to be erected by accessing the rear garden.
We have also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

The resident is a secure tenant of the landlord. The property is a maisonette with access to a rear garden.
The landlord’s responsive repairs policy sets out that it aims to complete routine repairs within 20 working days. This includes minor roof repairs. The landlord has a 2 stage complaints process. It aims to respond to complaints at stage 1 within 10 working days and to those at stage 2 within 10 working days.
On 30 November 2022 the resident contacted the landlord to report a leak around her bathroom extractor fan. She said it was the third time she had experienced a leak in the same place. The landlord raised a repair on 5 December 2022. The following day it sent an email to the resident confirming that an operative would attend to inspect the roof on 13 December 2022. While we have not seen record of this inspection, the following day the landlord emailed the resident. It referred to the inspection the previous day and said that scaffolding was required to progress the repair work.
On 13 January 2023 the resident contacted the landlord. She said:
1. scaffolders had attended the previous day. She had relayed to them that the operative who attended on 13 December 2022 had said scaffolding could be erected via access through her rear garden.
2. the scaffolders left without completing the work saying additional support would be needed to complete it.
3. she did not want scaffolding carried through her property as damage had been caused when this was done on previous occasions. She also raised concerns about having to leave her door open during this work.
On 25 January 2023 the scaffolding subcontractor told the landlord’s repairs contractor that scaffolding had to go through the resident’s property. This was on the basis that it was too far to carry equipment otherwise. The same day the landlord’s repairs contractor referred the matter back to the landlord.
On 1 March 2023 the resident complained to the landlord. She asked that it inspect how scaffolding could be erected and provide clear instructions so the repair could proceed. The landlord provided its stage 1 complaint response on 15 March 2023. It said the resident had refused access for scaffolders to go through her property and this had caused a delay. It said:
1. scaffolders had confirmed accessing through the rear of the property would be too far for them to carry materials.
2. access was needed through the resident’s property to complete the necessary work.
3. the resident should make contact to arrange an appointment for scaffolders to reattend.
The resident escalated her complaint on 15 March 2023. She said:
1. erecting and dismantling scaffolding via access through her property had caused her “huge inconvenience” and damage to her property on previous occasions.
2. an inspector recommended in December 2022 that access should be through the rear garden. She said she was “within [her] rights” to request this.
3. she had previously requested that an inspector revisit to provide scaffolders with clear instructions.
4. she had 2 young children with disabilities and very little awareness of danger. She also said that she had a puppy that could escape during the work.
On 23 March 2023 the landlord noted that it told the resident it would not be inspecting the issue as a scaffolder would “[k]no[w] more” about the matter. Internally the landlord questioned how it could progress the repair as it was in a “limbo stage again”.
In April 2023 the resident sent an email to the landlord. She said:
1. she was still waiting for a resolution.
2. she had just seen the contractor erect scaffolding on her neighbour’s property through rear access.
3. she wanted the landlord to inspect the issue.
4. the leak had been ongoing for 4 months.
Later in April 2023, after the resident contacted us, we wrote to the landlord outlining the resident’s concerns about its handling of the roof leak. At this time, we said the resident also had concerns that there was an ongoing issue with pigeons nesting in the loft. In response the following day, the landlord stated that the pigeon issue had not been raised by the resident as part of the complaint it was investigating.
On 4 May 2023 the landlord provided its stage 2 complaint response to the resident. It said:
1. there were no notes of what its roofing contractor had recommended when attending on 13 December 2022.
2. it appreciated the resident’s concerns, but its scaffolding contractor had said access was needed through the resident’s property.
3. access through the rear garden was “not feasible” as it would be challenging to carry material.
4. its surveyor had agreed with this advice.
5. it would place protective sheets inside the property and would accept liability for any damage caused.
6. it had referred the matter to its neighbourhood team to assist in gaining access so it could complete the work.
In correspondence with the resident in July and August 2023 the landlord noted that she still wanted it to attend to assess the scaffolding situation. Internally on 16 August 2023 the landlord noted its surveyor had said they were not in a position to “dictate or determine” how scaffolding should be erected.
In September 2023 the landlord wrote to the resident. It said that a building surveyor had inspected and recommended access through the resident’s property for “health and safety”. It said that it may now consider an injunction for access if it did not hear from her by 22 September 2023. In response the resident said that she had not refused access. She said she wanted the landlord to inspect both access through the rear of her property and through her property, and she was yet to hear about this.
In October 2023 the landlord asked that its repairs contractor confirm why scaffolding could not be erected using rear access to property. The following day the contractor told the landlord that it had inspected the property and there was “easy access” through the rear of the resident’s property. Following this, later that month, the landlord contractor erected scaffolding by access through the rear of the property.

Assessment and findings

Scope of the investigation

The landlord’s final response to the resident’s complaint was in May 2023. At that time the focus was about how scaffolding would be erected to allow access to the loft/roof. The resident has since raised concerns about the landlord’s handling of the roof leak and the pigeon infestation since it erected scaffolding in October 2023. We acknowledge the resident’s concerns about this. However, in the interest of fairness, the landlord should have the opportunity to consider and respond to her concerns about its handling of issues since that date. This will allow it to investigate and respond to the resident’s concerns in the first instance. However, should the resident remain unhappy about the response from the landlord, she can then refer the complaint back to us once she has exhausted the landlord’s complaints procedure.
The scope of this investigation is therefore limited to the landlord’s handling of issues up to October 2023, when scaffolding was erected.

Handling of reports of a leak, pigeon infestation and the request for scaffolding to be erected by accessing the rear garden

Pigeon infestation

The resident did not refer to the pigeon infestation in her loft during her complaint to the landlord in March 2023. However, after she contacted us in April 2023 we told the landlord of these concerns. In response it told us this matter had not been raised by the resident in the current complaint it was investigating. But that should not have stopped the landlord from clarifying these concerns with the resident. In line with the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code, it should then have raised the matter as a new complaint. Or, if it was appropriate to do so, it could have included it in its stage 2 consideration of the resident’s complaint. That it did neither was a complaint handling failing. Therefore, while this matter was not included by the landlord in its complaint responses, we have considered its handling of this issue as part of this investigation.
We acknowledge that steps the landlord needed to take to resolve the infestation would also have been dependent on access to the resident’s loft via scaffolding. It had previously identified that there was no loft access other than through the roof. However, the landlord should reasonably have acknowledged the resident’s concerns about the pigeon infestation and set out steps it would take to address this. The landlord should also have made record of the pigeon infestation the resident had reported so it could factor this into its consideration of work needed to the roof/loft. The resident asked the landlord in September 2023 what it was going to do to investigate and address the pigeon infestation in her loft. That there is no evidence the landlord responded to the resident at this time, or made note of the infestation in repair records, is a further failing. The landlord missed the opportunity to clarify to the resident what it would do about this.

The leak and request for scaffolding to be erected by accessing the rear garden

The resident raised a report of a leak to her bathroom extractor fan on 30 November 2022. Following this, the landlord took appropriate steps in line with timescales set out in its responsive repairs policy. It arranged for a roofing contractor to inspect the issue on 13 December 2022. It identified that scaffolding was required to access and complete necessary repair work. It then appropriately communicated with the resident by updating her on 14 December 2022 about the steps required to complete the repair.
The scaffolding contractor attended the resident’s property on 12 January 2023 to erect scaffolding. This did not go ahead as the resident had understood scaffolding could be erected by access through her garden. Following this, the resident told the landlord of her concerns about how scaffolding would be erected. In correspondence with the landlord and its contractor that month and in February 2023 the resident provided photos of how she considered scaffolders could access through the rear of her property.
When she wrote to the landlord on 8 February 2023 the resident questioned when work would start. She said that she had contacted the contractor but still did not know when work would begin to resolve the leak. The landlord noted at this time that the scaffolders had said access through the rear would involve carrying equipment too great a distance. But when the resident requested on 1 March 2023 that the landlord attend to inspect this issue, it should reasonably have considered doing so. It was clear by this stage that concerns about how scaffolding would be erected was delaying the necessary repair work. The landlord should reasonably have considered how it could resolve this.
While it is reasonable for landlords to rely on the expertise of its contractors, this should not result in a rigid or inflexible approach. The resident had raised valid and understandable concerns about scaffolding being taken through her property. The landlord provided appropriate reassurance to her that its contractors would accept liability for any damage caused to her property during work. But it gave no apparent consideration to what she said about the potential risk to her children, who are both autistic. Nor did it consider what she said in January 2023 about the feasibility of using rear access. At this time she said she believed the difference between taking scaffolding through the rear, rather than through her property, was only an extra 2 feet in distance.
During the events, the landlord’s customer relations team twice requested internally that a joint inspection be arranged. When this was first requested in March 2023,thelandlord’s surveyor noted the scaffolding contractor would have assessed the options. They said, in these circumstances, the matter should be passed to its housing team to “arbitrate”. But there is no evidence any action was taken towards this. By this time, the repair had been outstanding for 4 months without any real progress. It should, reasonably, have been clear to the landlord that it needed to take some form of action to resolve the issue with erecting scaffolding. It had noted that the case was in “limbo stage again” and questioned how it could progress matters. It could have done so by inspecting the issue itself, requesting further information from its contractor/subcontractor to understand what had been explored in terms of access. Or it could have arranged a joint inspection, as its customer relations team had requested. That it did not take any of these steps was a failing.
When providing the resident with stage 1 and stage 2 complaint responses the landlord told the resident that it was not feasible for scaffolders to access through the rear garden. It said it would be “challenging” to carry material and its surveyor agreed with this advice. Internal records from around this time record that the surveyor considered that, if scaffolders did not believe access through the rear was feasible, then this was the recommendation the landlord would follow. But the landlord should have considered the concerns the resident had raised about risk to her children, and her questions about why it was not possible for scaffolders to access through the rear. Particularly given that she had said she believed this to be only a short distance further to carry equipment.
The landlord wrote to the resident in September 2023 stating that it may consider an injunction for access. It said that its building surveyor had inspected the resident’s building and had recommended that access should be through the resident’s property. While the landlord’s comments are not disputed, we have seen no evidence of such inspection. Around that time the landlord’s customer relations team had requested, again, that a joint inspection be completed to consider the resident’s concerns about scaffolding. Instead of doing so, the landlord’s repairs team noted that it considered there was no requirement for it to inspect, and that access was required through the resident’s property. Its statement to the resident that its building surveyor had inspected the building therefore appears misleading, given that there is no evidence of this. The landlord should have appropriately considered what steps it could take to resolve the disagreement about how it was to be erected. Informing the resident it may consider an injunction for access was a disproportionate and heavy-handed approach. That is particularly so as she had repeatedly requested that it inspect the situation, and that there is no evidence it did so.
The landlord eventually arranged for its repairs contractor to inspect the access to the rear of the resident’s property in October 2023. It is apparent this action was taken in response to contact from the resident’s local councillor. The resident should not have needed to go to the time and trouble of contacting her councillor. The landlord should have arranged to inspect access points much earlier. By the time it eventually did the work had been outstanding for 10 months. After attending the resident’s property, the landlord’s contractor reported that access via the rear of the property was “easy”. Had the landlord appropriately explored this option, as the resident requested in January 2023, the delay in work could reasonably have been avoided.
Overall, we have found maladministration in the landlord’s handling of reports of a leak, pigeon infestation and the request for scaffolding to be erected by accessing the rear garden. Its failing resulted in work to resolve the leak around the resident’s extractor fan, and the pigeon infestation, being unduly delayed. It also caused the resident frustration and meant that she had to expend time and trouble complaining and contacting her councillor.
With consideration to the circumstances of the case, and the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance, we have ordered an award aimed at recognising the impact of the landlord’s failings. We have also ordered that the landlord review failings identified. It should then consider whether it has sufficient guidance and processes in place around appropriate steps to take when there is a dispute about arrangements for repair work.

Complaint handling

While the landlord’s initial complaint response was timely, its stage 2 complaint response was delayed. But it appropriately advised and apologised to the resident for this in advance of the target response date. However, we have identified some failings in the landlord’s complaint handling.
As noted earlier the landlord should have clarified and acknowledged the resident’s concerns about the pigeon infestation in the loft. We have also found that the landlord missed the opportunity to take earlier steps to attempt to resolve the ongoing issue around how scaffolding should be erected. It should reasonably have considered what the resident had said regarding her concerns about the risk to her children. It should have fully considered and addressed her query about why access through the rear garden was not feasible, given she said it was only a short distance further. Had it done so, it should reasonably have arranged for an appropriate inspection of rear access at an earlier stage. This could have avoided some of the unnecessary delay in work to resolve the leak and pigeon infestation.
Overall, we have found maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint. Its failings meant the resident expended more time and trouble in an attempt to resolve issues. She would also have experienced frustration at the landlord’s lack of reasonable response to her request for it to inspect the situation. With consideration to the circumstances, and the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance, we have ordered an award aimed at recognising the impact of the landlord failings.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was:
1. maladministration in the landlord handling of reports of a leak, pigeon infestation and the request for scaffolding to be erected by accessing the rear garden.
2. maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

Within 4 weeks of the date of this report the landlord should:
1. contact the resident to apologise for the failings identified in this report.
2. pay the resident compensation of £700, made up of:
  1. £500 for the impact of failings in its handling of the leak, pigeon infestation and the request for scaffolding to be erected by accessing the rear garden.
  2. £200 for the impact if its complaint handling failing.
Within 6 weeks of the date of this report the landlord should review failings identified and consider whether it has sufficient guidance and processes in place around appropriate steps to take when there is a dispute about arrangements for repair work.

Recommendations

Within 2 weeks of the date of this report the landlord should contact the resident to establish if she wishes to raise a complaint about its handling of issues since scaffolding was erected in October 2023. It should then consider any complaint in line with its complaints procedure.