Tower Hamlets Homes (202305909)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202305909

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:
1. Handling of repairs to the exterior of the resident’s block and delays in removing scaffolding which blocked natural light in to the resident’s property.
2. Complaint handling.

Background

The resident is a secure tenant of a 2-bedroom flat on the eleventh floor of a block. She lives with her 3 children and partner. The landlord is an arms length management organisation (ALMO) which manages properties for the local authority. The landlord has no vulnerabilities recorded for the resident or members of her household.
The resident’s partner raised the complaint on her behalf. For the purpose of this report we will refer to him as ‘the representative.’
The representative raised a stage 1 complaint with the landlord on 21 November 2022. He said the landlord had erected scaffolding in May 2022 due to falling concrete debris. He considered the landlord’s communication regarding repair updates poor and said the scaffolding and netting limited natural light entering through the property’s windows. As such, he says the resident’s electricity bills increased as she needed to switch lights on during the day.
The landlord provided its stage 1 complaint response on 5 December 2022. It said:
1. It apologised for the inconvenience caused by the scaffolding.
2. That scaffolding was necessary to inspect and remove spalling concrete on the outside of the block.
3. Due to “the scale and severity of the repairs identified,” it had no planned date yet to remove the scaffolding due to the health and safety implications.
4. Its major works team were working on estimates with a view to appoint a contractor to complete the works in the coming months.
5. Leaving the scaffolding in place would reduce future installation costs and ensure the safety of residents from any further falling concrete. Therefore, the scaffolding would remain in place.
The representative asked to escalate the resident’s complaint to stage 2 of the landlord’s internal complaints process (ICP) on 23 December 2023. He did not understand the landlord’s explanation that leaving the scaffolding in place was cost effective. He said the scaffolding presented a high risk of crime and burglary. He said the resident could not afford to continue paying increased electricity costs which he said had been caused by the landlord’s “negligence.”
The landlord acknowledged the resident’s stage 2 complaint escalation request on 18 January 2023. It provided its stage 2 final response on 2 March 2023. In which, it apologised that it had not kept the resident informed of the repairs in line with the standards it expected. It acknowledged the inconvenience of the scaffolding but was satisfied it was necessary. It apologised and partially upheld the resident’s complaint.
The representative brought the resident’s complaint to the Housing Ombudsman Service. Her complaint became one we could formerly consider on 2 February 2024. The representative said the landlord’s apology did not compensate for the extra electricity use or the affect the scaffolding had on the mental health of household members. The representative informed us that he and the resident had a son with autism. He said the location of the scaffolding and closure of some parking spaces “forced them to walk all the way around the building” to access his car.
During a conversation with the representative on 3 October 2024 he advised us that the scaffolding remained in place but was due for removal between 23 September to 1 November 2024. He said the landlord’s updates and timescales for it to complete work had remained “vague.” He considered the resident was due compensation for the stress and inconvenience caused by the landlord’s delays and poor communication.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

We note the representative’s correspondence said the landlord’s handling of the block repair and the resident’s complaint affected the mental health and wellbeing of household members. We do not doubt these comments.
Although we are an alternative dispute resolution service, we are unable to prove legal liability on whether a landlord’s actions or lack of action have had a detrimental impact on a resident or household member’s health. Nor can we calculate or award damages. Therefore we are unable to consider any personal injury aspects of the resident’s complaint. A court or insurer must make an assessment of liability in such matters. The resident may wish to seek independent legal advice if she wants to pursue a claim for damages for any adverse effect on her or her family’s health.
In reaching a decision about the resident’s complaint, we consider whether the landlord has kept to the law, followed proper procedure and good practice and acted in a reasonable way. Our duty is to determine the complaint by reference to what is, in our findings, fair in all the circumstances of the case. Where we identify a failure by a landlord, we can consider the resulting distress and inconvenience.
We note the representative’s correspondence says repairs and the presence of scaffolding remained outstanding beyond the landlord’s stage 2 final response. A key part of our role is to assess the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint through its ICP. This is to ensure it took reasonable steps to resolve the resident’s complaint within its 2 stage process. Therefore, the findings made in this investigation will be based on whether the formal complaint responses provided reasonable redress, up to its stage 2 complaint response on 2 March 2023.

Handling of repairs to the exterior of the resident’s block and delays in removing scaffolding which blocked natural light in to the resident’s property

Under Section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 (LTA 1985), the landlord must keep in repair the structure and exterior of the property. The landlord acknowledges this obligation under rule 13 of its rules for your tenancy agreement document.
Neither party disputes that the landlord erected scaffolding at the resident’s block on 31 May 2022. This took place without advanced planning or warning. The representative says the landlord failed to provide any updates or explanation until chased.
On 16 June 2022 there is evidence the landlord discussed internally the need to update all residents at the block. It sent a block letter the following day which said it:
1. Had carried out urgent health and safety work at the block which included the necessary installation of scaffolding on the car park side of the building.
2. Removed defective concrete which had become loose and falling to ground level.
3. Apologised for the lack of notice and lack of communication before it erected the scaffolding. It explained its priority was to reduce the risk of injury or damage to people and vehicles.
4. Had identified further safety works required to the building. It was therefore essential to create a safety zone at ground level over the blocks entrance.
5. Had put this in place as a temporary measure while extensive major works were due to start on site shortly. It said it would send full communication to all resident’s in due course.
6. Apologised for any inconvenience during the period of essential health and safety repairs.
The landlord provided us with evidence of its processes. Within which we identified that where a property requires scaffolding, it will complete a site set up inspection, and send residents a scaffold erection notification letter 30 days from any parking suspension. We note the landlord apologised for its inability to provide notice to the resident as outline within its processes. However, given the immediate health and safety concerns and subsequent urgency of repair works, the landlord’s apology and explanation was reasonable in the circumstances.
That said, while the precise date of the urgent site inspection is unknown to us, it is unclear why it took the landlord 11 working days beyond the scaffold installation date, to notify the resident of the work and effect on communal parking. The landlord was unable to demonstrate why its efforts to update the resident had not taken place sooner. The landlord may need to rethink what effective communication looks like in such circumstances and who is responsible for its delivery.
There is no evidence the landlord provided any further updates until the representative chased it in October 2022. While we identified the landlord’s staff attempted internally to gather information for the representative, we have seen no evidence that it shared any update at this stage. This led to the resident’s stage 1 complaint on 21 November 2022. The need to take this action caused her avoidable time, trouble, and inconvenience as she sought help to resolve matters.
We note between 1 to 21 November 2022 correspondence between the representative and the landlord. In which the landlord’s member of staff apologised to the representative and advised they did not have direct access to the repairs and maintenance database. While they assured the representative that they were trying to get answers from the relevant teams, this demonstrated an internal communication and knowledge and information management issue.
Without good knowledge and information management (KIM) a landlord is unable to deliver its services efficiently and effectively. It is imperative that records are accurate and maintained to keep both the property and the resident safe now and in the future. There is evidence in this case that staff were either unable or did not know how to access data they needed. This delayed its ability to answer the resident’s questions and indicates poor information sharing at this stage.
The landlord’s stage 1 response on 5 December 2022 acknowledged that the representative asked it to provide him with a date it would remove the scaffolding. The landlord said it was unable to provide a date due to the “scale and severity” of the identified repairs required. It was therefore reasonable that the landlord explained it was working to secure a contractor to complete the work and the scaffolding would remain to prevent any falling debris.
We note the representative says that spalling concrete fell from the third floor of the block and below. He considered it unnecessary for the landlord to erect additional scaffolding in June 2022, to cover all seventeen floors. Therefore, he was not satisfied with the landlord’s response.
While we acknowledge the representative’s comments, the landlord’s stage 1 response gave a reasonable explanation in the circumstances at this stage. Although we do not have the expertise to determine how long a repair would require scaffolding, it was reasonable for the landlord to rely on the expert opinion of its qualified staff. By checking the entire block it is reasonable that the landlord was taking steps to ensure people’s health and safety. Given the size of the block and the number of floors, the need for additional scaffolding was reasonable. The landlord’s actions demonstrated it acting in line with its repair obligations under LTA 1985.
However, the landlord’s stage 1 response failed to provide any action plan regarding how it would keep the resident informed. The detriment of not providing an action plan to the resident would have been low. That said, she had at this stage already waited 6 months without any update from the landlord. It was therefore a missed opportunity for the landlord to demonstrate its commitment to improve future communication.
There is evidence within the landlord’s internal communication on 1 December 2022 in which it discussed the measures it had taken to prevent injury due to spalling concrete. It discussed the need for major repair works to the buildings concrete frame and its desire to bring forward additional planned works. It would therefore require surveys and tenders to complete other work to the block while the scaffolding remained in place. This demonstrated the landlord’s desire to complete additional work which would benefit all residents. It is therefore reasonable that surveys and tendering processes would have taken the landlord time to organise and complete.
That said, while a landlord has an obligation to complete repairs and appropriately manage its budgets and resources, how it communicated its intentions to the resident between 31 May 2022 to 1 December 2022 remains unclear. It was unreasonable that it required the resident’s time and trouble to raise a complaint to gain any form of update.
The representative asked to escalate the resident’s complaint to stage 2 of the landlord’s ICP on 23 December 2022. The complaint included dissatisfaction about the scaffoldings continued presence because:
1. It was not cost effective and a “waste of public money.”
2. The resident continued to experience increased electricity costs due to the lack of natural lighting.
3. High crime rates in the area presented an increased risk of intrusion to the resident.
The landlord’s stage 2 final response apologised and acknowledged that communication had fallen below its expectations. Its response addressed the concerns raised within the resident’s stage 2 complaint. It said that:
1. As the cost of the scaffolding was commercially sensitive, it could not share this information. However, due to the complex structure of the building and extensive works, it said the main cost was the design and installation. It was therefore satisfied that leaving it in place, while consultations and tendering took place, was appropriate to maintain health and safety.
2. It was unfortunate that the darker reduced day light hours were affecting the resident. It apologised for any inconvenience caused while it organised and completed essential repairs.
3. It appreciated the resident’s concerns about safety. However, it had no evidence to suggest higher crime rates in the area. It said it had already taken measures to secure the site. Such as removing ladders and providing heras fencing to surround the scaffolding.
We consider the landlord’s response reasonable in the circumstances. However, while the landlord acknowledged its communication failures, it offered no redress to put things right. Furthermore, we have been unable to identify any evidence of learning. The landlord gave no commitment to the resident by when it would provide her with another update. This did not demonstrate the landlord taking steps to improve its communication or learning since its stage 1 response.
The representative has provided photographic evidence of the scaffolding. In which, it is clear the landlord used netting rather than tarpaulin safety coverings. It is clear from the photographs that light, while reduced, can enter the netting and the individual properties are visible to us. Though we do not doubt that the structure cast shadows and reduced natural lighting.
However, we have been unable to identify how the landlord considered the resident’s natural light and electricity cost concerns. Nor evidence that it visited the property to support its stage 2 response. This did not demonstrate the landlord taking the resident’s concerns seriously.
The landlord has a responsibility under the housing health and safety rating system (HHSRS), introduced by The Housing Act 2004, to assess hazards and risks within its rented properties. Inadequate natural or artificial lighting is a potential hazard. Upon receiving reports of inadequate lighting, the landlord should be able to demonstrate how it monitored or responded to the potential hazard. That it did not visit, did not demonstrate the landlord considered the resident’s reports under its HHSRS obligations.
We acknowledge the resident says her electricity costs increased due to the lack of natural light and the need to put the property’s lights on during the day. While we do not doubt the resident’s claims, she did not provide evidence of electricity use increases to the landlord or us. Therefore, our role here is to assess the landlord’s response to her concerns.
Though the health and safety need for the scaffolding and netting was reasonable, it is unclear why the landlord did not evidence the steps it took to assess the effects on the resident. By visiting her, the landlord may have been able to provide advice on how to lessen any affect regard to loss of natural light.
While the landlord may not have been able to fully resolve the resident’s concerns, it would have demonstrated a more customer focused approach. This may have at least reassured the resident it was making efforts to address her concerns and may have identified where it could have adjusted any structures causing shadows. That it did not visit did nothing to improve the landlord and resident relationship.
While the landlord’s repairs policy is silent on the actions it will take in such circumstances, it would have been reasonable for it to have visited the resident’s property. That it did not do this, left the resident feeling the landlord had not thoroughly investigated her concerns in order to produce its complaint responses.
We understand the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident as a result of having to live with scaffolding outside her property for a long period of time. However, the landlord’s explanation of the urgent health and safety needs and additional works identified was reasonable in the circumstances. That said, the landlord repeatedly failed to demonstrate effective communication with the resident.
The landlord acted in line with its obligations under LTA 1985. It was reasonable for the landlord to take all necessary steps to repair the spalling concrete and ensure no debris fell to the ground. The investigation of and subsequent repair works to the multi storey block were essential to facilitate this. Therefore, it was reasonable for the landlord to require scaffolding for an extended period of time.
That said, the landlord does not dispute its communication failures. This failure has been evident throughout our investigation. Furthermore, the landlord failed to demonstrate visiting the resident’s property to thoroughly assess her concerns. Therefore, based on the accumulation of identified service failures, we find maladministration.
We order the landlord to pay the resident £250 compensation for this complaint point. This is in accordance with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance which provides for awards of compensation between £100 and £600 where there has been a failure which has adversely affected the resident.
We also note that the landlord’s records do not identify the health vulnerabilities for the resident’s son. The representative says this should not be the case as the resident informed the council and it increased her housing priority need. While the functions of the council’s housing options team and housing division are likely separate, the landlord’s record keeping in this case should reflect the household needs. Therefore, we order it to update its household records.

Complaint handling

The landlord’s relevant complaints policy dated 21 September 2022 says that it will respond to complaints from residents at stage 1 of its ICP within 10 working days. It says that it will respond to stage 2 complaints within 20 working days. The policy also allows for extensions of up to a further 10 working days at each stage where cases are more complex to investigate. The landlord says it will discuss and agree any extension with the resident beforehand.
The Housing Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code) 1 April 2022 required landlords to acknowledge a complaint within 5 days. And respond to stage 1 and 2 complaints within 10 and 20 working days, respectively. Therefore the landlord’s relevant complaints policy was appropriate and aligned to the expectations of the Code.
The representative raised a stage 1 complaint to the landlord on 21 November 2022. Therefore, he should have received a stage 1 acknowledgement by 28 November 2022 and a stage 1 response by 5 December 2022. It was appropriate that the landlord met the obligations of the Code by sending a timely acknowledgement and stage 1 response.
The representative asked to escalate the resident’s complaint to stage 2 of the landlord’s ICP on 23 December 2022. The landlord should therefore have sent an acknowledgement by 4 January 2023 and a stage 2 final response by 25 January 2023. It was not appropriate that the landlord failed to meet either of these expected response timescales. It sent its acknowledgement and stage 2 final response 15 and 46 working days beyond these dates.
Paragraph 5.14 of the Code says if a landlord requires an extension beyond 10 working days to enable it to respond to the complaint fully, both parties should agree on the date. The landlord has not provided evidence to demonstrate that it informed the resident of any complaint handling delays. Nor has it demonstrated agreeing an extension date with the representative. This was not appropriate and did not demonstrate it acted in line with its relevant complaints policy nor the expectations of the Code.
The landlord’s stage 2 final response apologised for the lack of communication and updates sent regarding repair progress. It said that “this is not the standard of service we aim to offer our residents.” While it was reasonable in the circumstances for the landlord to recognise this failure, its response made no reference to its complaint handling delays.
When there are failings by a landlord, as is the case here, we will consider whether the redress offered by the landlord put things right and resolved the resident’s complaint satisfactorily in the circumstances. In considering this, we take into account whether its offer of redress was in line with the dispute resolution principles, be fair, put things right and learn from outcomes.
It was fair for the landlord to apologise for its communication failures. This demonstrated the landlord recognised that its service delivery had fallen short of its expectations. It demonstrated learning by committing to raising communication concerns with its teams. However, the landlord’s failure to provide the resident with a timely stage 2 acknowledgement and response adversely affected the resident. This failed to put things right for the resident.
While the detriment to the resident would have been minimal, we find service failure in this matter. We order the landlord to pay £75 compensation. This is to recognise the time, trouble, distress, and inconvenience to the resident as she tried to get matters resolved through the landlord’s ICP. This is in line with the remedies guidance available to us when we do not consider an apology alone proportionate redress.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration with the landlord’s handling of repairs to the exterior of the resident’s block and delays in removing scaffolding which blocked natural light in to the resident’s property.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was service failure with the landlord’s complaint handling.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

The landlord is ordered to take the following action within 4 weeks of the date of this report. The landlord must provide the Ombudsman with evidence that it has complied with these orders:
1. Pay the resident £325 compensation. The compensation is made up of:
  1. £250 for the time, trouble, distress, and inconvenience caused by the landlord’s handling of repairs to the exterior of the resident’s block and delays in removing scaffolding which blocked natural light in to the resident’s property.
  2. £75 for the time and trouble caused by the landlord’s complaint handling.
2. We order the landlord to contact the resident and ensure that its health and vulnerability records accurately reflect the resident’s household circumstances.
3. We order the landlord to provide the resident with a written summary of the expect timescales for the complete removal of the scaffolding. This information should include, where known, information about planned future major works and anticipated dates.

Recommendations

The landlord may wish to consider requesting the necessary evidence from the resident to assess and reimburse her reported increased electricity use following the scaffold installation.
The landlord may wish to consider reviewing its processes when an emergency prevents it from giving residents advanced notice of scaffold installation. It may wish to consider the timeframes for sending notifications and who is responsible for the delivery of the message.
The landlord may wish to consider reviewing its processes to review how it will respond to resident’s who report the effects of the loss of natural light due to scaffolding.