Waltham Forest Council (202101260)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202101260

Waltham Forest Council

26 September 2022

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 concerns the landlord’s handling of repairs and the resident’s request for replacement windows.

Background and summary of events

The tenant is a secure resident. The property is a bedsit, ground floor flat in a three storey building.
In 2011, there was a window renewal programme at the building whereby the majority of windows were replaced with double glazing. In his April 2021 formal complaint raised via the Ombudsman, the resident said that he received a letter from the landlord more than ten years ago stating that the landlord would replace the windows and doors however this never happened. As there is no evidence of the resident raising a complaint which exhausted the landlord’s complaint process at that time, this review will only consider events from November 2020 when the landlord’s surveyor inspected doors and windows at the property; this is within a reasonable timeframe of the resident’s April 2021 formal complaint raised.
The resident has vulnerabilities which are noted on the landlord’s system. The landlord confirmed that the resident has a Mental Health Worker, and an Independent Living Officer (ILO) supporting him. In his formal complaint, the resident also said he was unable to open his existing windows which had caused a build-up of dust within the property and that he was concerned how this had impacted his health. It is not the role of the Ombudsman to investigate if there was a causal link between reports of health issues experienced by the resident and the actions of the landlord. The resident may wish to seek legal advice about this, as a personal injury claim may be a more appropriate way of dealing with this aspect of the complaint. As this is more appropriately dealt with by a court or other procedure, this element will not be investigated.
The landlord’s records show that on 19 November 2020, its surveyor visited the property to carry out an (external) inspection. The surveyor noted that double-glazed windows had not been fitted to the property and that structural repairs were outstanding and needed to be carried out before the windows and a door could be installed.
The landlord’s repair records show that on 13 April 2021, it raised a job order in relation to the property to undertake repairs to the bay and front door lintels.
On 16 April 2021, the resident contacted the Ombudsman regarding the lack of double glazed windows and a new door within his property. The resident said that a surveyor had attended his property but there had been no progress with this since December 2020.
Following contact from the Ombudsman on 16 April 2021, the landlord confirmed that it had logged a stage one complaint.
On 14 May 2021, the landlord provided a stage one complaint response to the resident. Within its response, it apologised for the length of time he had waited for the repairs to his property to be carried out.
It acknowledged that there was a window renewal programme at his building where windows were replaced with double glazing however, it said that having looked in to the matter, his property did not have the windows replaced at that time.
The landlord stated that a surveyor had inspected his property on 19 November 2020 and established that before his windows could be replaced, the bay window brickwork required renewal. It said however that at that time, its repair contractor was only completing emergency repairs due to Covid-19 restrictions, therefore all planned repairs were put on hold. It said it could now confirm that an order had been raised for the renewal of the bay window brickwork, new front door and double glazed window installation. The landlord advised that its repair contractor would contact him within 10 working days to schedule a date and time for these repairs.
It also said as a goodwill gesture it would decorate his entire property in recognition of the inconvenience caused.
In conclusion it said it upheld his complaint and apologised for the inconvenience caused.
On 21 May 2021, the resident told the Ombudsman that he was unhappy with its stage one complaint response. The resident:
1. disputed that a surveyor inspected the property the previous year.
2. disputed the length of time the repairs had been outstanding to the windows and doors.
3. disputed the length of time scaffolding had been erected.
4. requested that the landlord undertake the repairs, pay him compensation and move him out of the borough.
The landlord’s repair records show that on 4 June 2021, it raised a job order for a quote to renew all windows and the front door to the property.
On 15 June 2021, the resident called the landlord to discuss the outstanding works to the windows and door. The landlord’s internal communications state the resident was very unhappy about the time taken to complete the work and also advised his bathroom window, which is on the ground floor, could not be closed securely, leaving him vulnerable to someone breaking in. He also said that an inner door needed to be replaced as it should be fire-proof.
On 21 June 2021, the landlord provided a stage two complaint response. It acknowledged the aspects the resident disputed and the resolution he sought. The landlord advised of its repair policy and expected timescales for different types of repairs. It advised that the window renewal programme at his building, whereby windows were replaced with double glazing, happened in 2011. It said it was not clear why his property was overlooked at that time and due to the elapse of time, it could not investigate this further.
The landlord explained the surveyor who visited on 19 November 2020 inspected the external side of the property. He did not speak with the resident and did not require access to his home. It said following his visit, the surveyor raised a specification of works. It reiterated that the work was delayed due to Covid restrictions but said works had been raised by the surveyor. It said that the surveyor had had telephone contact with his partner, although it did not have recordings of the call.
It referred to damage in the property and said Building Services were aware of this, particularly in the ceiling area around the bay window, which had been made worse due to the delay in replacing the windows. It said repairs to the lintels above the windows had been arranged to commence on 10 October 2021 and once completed the new windows and front entrance door would be installed, and the property decorated. It added that there had been discussions about this work being brought forward.
The landlord said that scaffolding was erected on 18 April 2021 and was needed to assess the repairs and as part of the preparation for the new windows and doors. The scaffolding would need to remain in place as it was required for the repair work that was planned for October 2021. It noted that Building Services had confirmed that the scaffolding was not causing any obstruction and if the works were carried out earlier than October, it would expect the contractor to remove the scaffolding earlier.
In regards to moving out of the borough, it said this was not something that could be achieved through its corporate complaints procedure however, the landlord suggested speaking with his Housing Officer, who it said would be able to provide him with advice on the options available to him. It provided a link to information on its website.
Regarding his request for compensation, it said in recognition of any inconvenience caused, it had agreed to undertake redecorating of his home once the repairs were completed and once the new windows and door had been installed. It said it appreciated that the work was not scheduled to start until October 2021. Unfortunately, this meant that the current situation would be extended until the latter part of that year.
The landlord included various documents with its response to the resident including the specification of works raised by the surveyor dated 11 June 2021 and his diary sheet from 19 November 2020.

Post final response

The landlord’s internal communications refer to it speaking to the resident’s partner on 27 August 2021 who confirmed all works were completed and the painting and remedial works from the window and door installation were complete but that there were works to the lounge wall and ceiling and a crack in the bathroom separate from this complaint job. It asked for these works to be looked at during the post inspection.
On 8 September 2021, the resident told the Ombudsman that the windows and doors had been replaced however there were still some “finishing touches” needed to the flooring, front and kitchen/bathroom windows and doors. The resident also said accumulated dust had affected his health.
Within its response to the Ombudsman dated 20 September 2021, the landlord said that, after the restrictions were lifted, and with the help of the Housing Officer, ILO and Resident Liaison Officer from its repair contractor, the windows and doors where installed on 20 August 2021.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s repair policy sets out timescales for carrying out different repairs, including: 5 calendar days for urgent repairs; 21 calendar days for routine repairs and 45 calendar days for ‘45-Day’ repairs.
The landlord’s surveyor attended to inspect the property (externally) on 19 November 2020 and confirmed to the landlord that replacement windows and doors had not been fitted and advised that structural repairs were outstanding and needed to be carried out before the replacement windows and doors could be installed. The landlord’s records provided to this Service do not pre-date this inspection – as such, it is unclear that there was any service failure by the landlord or contact from the resident prior to this date.
The repairs and window and door installation that its surveyor had considered was needed in November 2020 were not progressed at that time. The landlord’s repair history shows it did not raise a job order for these repairs until 13 April 2021. In its stage one complaint response to the resident dated 14 May 2021, the landlord apologised for the delay in completing the repairs and window replacements and said whilst the surveyor had recommended these works, its repair contractor was only completing emergency repairs at that time due to the Covid-19 restrictions in place.
This Service recognises that landlords are not responsible for delays caused by Covid-19 restrictions and, in this case, as the second and third national lockdowns occurred during the timeframe in question, it was reasonable for the landlord to put on hold the window and door installation and associated repairs as there is a lack of evidence to suggest they were ‘emergency repairs’. Nonetheless, the resident’s concern expressed to this Service about the delay due to the impact of not being able to open the windows, is understandable.
In its stage one complaint response to the resident, the landlord confirmed that an order had been raised for the works as by this stage restrictions had started to lift (since late March 2021). It also explained that scaffolding was erected on 18 April 2021 in order for its repair contractor to assess the repairs as part of the preparation work. Therefore, the landlord’s action taken to progress the works, once restrictions started to lift, was reasonable.
However, in its stage two response, the landlord advised that it expected the repairs and replacement window and door installation to be completed in October 2021 although it said this work would be brought forward if possible. It is clear from the parties’ subsequent communications that the structural repairs and windows and door replacement were completed by the landlord’s repair contractor by the end of August 2021. Whilst the works were completed sooner than anticipated in the final response, as it took more than four months, this is longer than any of the timescales in the landlord’s repairs policy and therefore represented an unreasonable delay by the landlord.
In summary, whilst the results of the surveyor inspection of 19 November 2020 established that structural repairs were needed before the windows and door could be replaced at the property, there was a nine month delay in completing the works. However, at least half of this delay was due to Covid-19 restrictions that the landlord was not responsible for. Whilst the landlord may have had a back log of repairs needed after the restrictions were lifted, it has not said this. As such, it is responsible for the delay from April 2021 until the work was done approximately four months later at the end of August 2021.
In its stage one response, the landlord agreed to decorate the resident’s entire flat once all the works were completed, as a goodwill gesture for the inconvenience caused. Whilst it is usual practice for the landlord to make good any damage caused by either repairs or works carried out to a property, in accordance with the tenancy agreement, the landlord was not obliged to conduct internal decorations to the property.
Its offer, and steps taken, to decorate throughout the resident’s property demonstrates that it took his concerns seriously and used its discretion to recognise the inconvenience that its earlier delay had caused to him. The value of these discretionary works was likely to have been significant and within a range of compensation that the Ombudsman would recommend for a complaint where there has been a lengthy failure on the part of the landlord. The combination of the landlord’s apologies and its discretionary decoration of the resident’s property therefore represented appropriate redress for the four-month delay in completing the window and door works.
It is noted that the landlord’s Corporate Complaints procedure (CCP) requires that the landlord respond to stage one complaints within 20 working days and stage two complaints within 25 working days.
Whilst the landlord followed the timescales in its own complaints process when handling the resident’s stage one and two complaints, the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code requires that landlords provide stage one and two responses to residents within 10 and 20 working days respectively. As such, as the landlord’s CCP does not currently comply with the Housing Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code, it is recommended that the landlord review its Complaints Policy to bring it in line with the Ombudsman’s Complaints Handling Code.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 55(b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was reasonable redress by the landlord in its handling of repairs and the resident’s request for replacement windows.

Reasons

There were delays by the landlord in completing works and repairs to the property as recommended by its surveyor, however, some of the delay was due to the impact of the Covid-19 restrictions. As the landlord apologised for, and provided a discretionary decoration of the resident’s property, this constitutes appropriate redress for the remaining four-month delay in completing the window and door works.

Orders and recommendations

The finding of reasonable redress is based on the remedies offered by the landlord during the complaints process, as such, the landlord is expected to provide these in full to the resident if not already done so.
The Ombudsman recommends that the landlord:
1. review its complaints policy to bring it in line with the Ombudsman’s Complaints Handling Code. Specifically, this relates timescales for response. In accordance with the Housing Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code, a landlord’s complaints procedure should include the following:
  1. Logging and acknowledgement of complaint – five working days
  2. Stage one decision – 10 working days from receipt of complaint – if this is not possible, an explanation and a date by when the stage one response should be received. This should not exceed a further 10 days without good reason.
  3. Stage two response – 20 working days from request to escalate – if this is not possible an explanation and a date when the stage two response will be received. This should not exceed a further 10 working days without good reason.