One Housing Group Limited (202316616)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202316616

One Housing Group Limited

27 November 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

1. The complaint is about the resident’s reports about the landlord’s handling of repairs to the metal panel attached to her balcony.

Background

2. The resident has held a shared ownership lease of a new-build flat with the landlord since 27 January 2012. She holds a 40% share of the flat. The flat is on the fifth floor of the block.
3. In February 2022 the resident said she contacted the landlord to say one of the bolts that was securing a decorative panel onto her Juliet balcony had come out. She said there were high winds and she was concerned that the panel could fall off. The landlord’s repair log shows that the landlord attempted to attend the resident’s property but the works were cancelled as it said the resident was unavailable for the appointment.
4. The landlord did not provide any further update about the repair until over a year later, on 13 March 2023, when the resident made a complaint. She said the panel had still not been secured. The landlord inspected the property and responded to the resident’s complaint on 13 April. It said the panel would need to be repaired externally. It admitted it had delayed in its response to the repair and offered the resident £50 in compensation for this.
5. The resident was dissatisfied with the landlord’s first response and asked it to escalate her complaint on 23 April 2023. In its final complaint response on 24 May the landlord increased its compensation to £300.This comprised of £200 for the delay in logging and carrying out the repair, £50 that it offered at stage 1 and £50 for an error in its complaint handling.  
6. The landlord said it had spoken with the resident and she said the building developer had contacted her to arrange works. It said the developer would be attending with an abseiler to make the repairs to her balcony externally and at the same time inspecting the other balconies in the block. It said that repairs to the balconies would be at no cost to the leaseholders.
7. The repairs remained outstanding in June 2023, when the resident chased the landlord again. It is noted that the landlord had been speaking with the developer about doing the works. The matter was still unresolved in August 2023 so the resident escalated her complaint to this Service. The developer said it would start the works in March 2024. However there was a further delay (due to road closures) and it completed the works in May 2024.
8. The resident has confirmed that the developer has completed the works, however she said she remains concerned about whether the panel has been safely secured onto her balcony. She said she wanted assurance from the landlord that this was the case.

Assessment and findings

Scope of the investigation

9. The resident raised concerns about the impact the repair issue has had on her mental wellbeing. Whilst this Service is an alternative to the courts, it is unable to establish legal liability or whether a landlord’s actions or lack of action have had a detrimental impact on a resident’s health. Nor can it calculate or award damages. The Ombudsman therefore cannot consider any personal injury aspect of the resident’s complaint. These matters are likely better suited to consideration by a court or via a personal injury or insurance claim, in accordance with paragraph 42.f. of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme (the Scheme).
10. The resident has also raised dissatisfaction when complaining to this Service about the landlord potentially breaching her data privacy. Under paragraph 42.j. of the Scheme the Ombudsman may not consider matters which fall properly within the jurisdiction of another Ombudsman, regulator or complaint-handling body. In this case the resident is advised to contact the Information Commissioner’s Office about these matters, if she has not already done so.
11. Paragraph 42.c. of the Scheme states that the Ombudsman may not investigate a complaint which was not brought to the attention of the landlord as a formal complaint within a reasonable period which would normally be within 12 months of the matters arising. Some elements of the resident’s complaint refer to issues in 2017 and the following years.
12. The Ombudsman encourages residents to raise and escalate complaints with their landlords at the time the events happened. This is because with the passage of time, evidence may be unavailable and personnel involved may have left an organisation, which makes it difficult for a thorough investigation to be carried out and for informed decisions to be made. Because of that, in accordance the Scheme with paragraph 42.c., this report centres on the events from February 2022 leading up to the resident’s complaint to the landlord in March 2023.

Repairs to the metal panel attached to the resident’s balcony

13. The evidence provided shows there had been several occasions previously in 2021 when the landlord had had discussions with the building developer about the balcony panel. In October 2021 the developer secured the panels to the balcony rails internally with ‘Xylock nuts’ and attached cable ties as another temporary measure.
14. Four months later, on 18 February 2022, the resident sent an email to the landlord saying there was a weather alert of high winds and the panel was flapping in the wind. The landlord’s repair log shows that it raised a job for a carpenter to inspect the panel internally however it said the job was cancelled because the resident was unavailable for the appointment. There is no evidence of the appointment being rescheduled.
15. Loose external metal panels are a potential hazard that could cause serious injury or death, especially if they fall from a height. In this case the landlord did not demonstrate that it had ensured that the resident’s panel was safely secured when she had reported it loose again in February 2022. It was not until the resident complained over a year later on 13 March 2023 that the landlord demonstrated that it would take steps to secure the panel. While there is no evidence of the resident raising the issue again until 2023, the loose panel was a potential safety risk and the landlord should have inspected the issue within a reasonable timescale.
16. When the resident complained to the landlord on 13 March 2023 she said another bolt had come out of one of the metal panels. She said the panel was flapping in the wind, and later provided a video of it. It is clear the issue was causing distress to the resident, especially as she had said there was a school nearby and children often went to the shop below her building.
17. The landlord attended the resident’s property on 13 April 2023, which was the same day as its stage 1 response. It temporarily secured the panel again. In its stage 1 response the landlord said that the surveyor would reattend the resident’s property to access the balcony externally via scaffolding or a cherry-picker. It did not say when that would be done.
18. In its response to the resident’s escalated complaint, the landlord acknowledged it should have treated her report in 2022 as urgent and attended within 24 hours. It explained it would repair the balcony panel shortly using an abseiler (and also inspect other balconies in the block). It also acknowledged its handling of the issue had been poor, and explained how it would use the complaint to improve its repair services more widely. It apologised, and increased its compensation to £300.
19. The landlord’s response to the resident’s complaint was broadly reasonable and in line with the expectations set out in the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code). It acknowledged the issue was serious with potential safety risks and that it had had handled the matter poorly. It explained in detail how it would use the complaint to improve its service, and what it intended to do to resolve the repair issue. It apologised, and offered a level of compensation in accordance with its compensation policy for complaints where there is clear inconvenience and distress flowing from repeated failings, but with no permanent impact.
20. However, the repairs remained unresolved until May 2024, one year after the landlord’s final complaint response. In August 2023 the resident expressed her increasing concerns to the landlord for the safety of any passers-by. She escalated her complaint to this service, because of those concerns. The landlord said it had been liaising with developers about who was responsible and it apologised to the resident for the further delay.
21. The evidence shows this was a complex issue with potentially wider implications across the whole block, and involving the building developers as well. It may be that the time taken to finally resolve the issue was indicative of the nature of the problem rather than any specific failing by the landlord. Nonetheless, in such a situation basic good practice would be for the landlord to keep the resident updated and informed of its actions, and manage her expectations about the anticipated timescale. There is no evidence of it proactively doing that. In the circumstances of the nature of this repair issue and the understandable distress the resident had explained to the landlord it was causing her, that was a further failing, which the landlord has not remedied.
22. Since the repairs were carried out, the resident remains concerned whether the panel is safely secured to her balcony. She said the landlord has not confirmed this. It is therefore recommended that the landlord contacts the resident to discuss her concerns to offer some assurances to the resident. This is especially the case given the safety concerns that she has raised.

Determination

23. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of repairs to the metal panel attached to her balcony.

Orders and recommendations

Order

24. Within 4 weeks from the date of this report the landlord is ordered to;
    1. Pay compensation of £300 to the resident for its handling of repairs to the metal panel attached to her balcony.
25. The above amount is in addition to what the landlord has already offered to the resident in respect of the complaint.
26. In accordance with paragraph 54.g. of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord should conduct a review to establish;
    1. Why it did not initially undertake the repairs identified in its complaint response.
    2. How it monitors commitments made in its internal complaints procedure to ensure actions are completed.
27. The landlord is ordered to confirm compliance with the above order within 6 weeks of the date of this report.

Recommendation

28. It is recommended that the landlord contacts the resident to discuss her ongoing concerns about the safety of the balcony panel.