Equity Housing Group Limited (201902020)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 201902020

Equity Housing Group Limited

26 May 2021 (Amended on Review)

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 handling of repairs to the windows and the length of time it took to replace the windows at the property.
2. The complaint is also about the landlord’s complaint handling.

Jurisdiction

3. What we can and cannot consider is called the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. This is governed by the Housing Ombudsman Scheme. When a complaint is brought to the Ombudsman, we must consider all the circumstances of the case as there are sometimes reasons why a complaint will not be investigated.
4. The resident raises issues regarding the windows dating back to 2009; more than ten years before he made the complaint he brought to the landlord and to this Service in 2019. He brought a complaint to the landlord in 2017 and then again in 2019, regarding historical issues regarding window repair as well as dissatisfaction with the landlord having not yet replaced the windows.  The issues the resident raises regarding historical repair were brought to the landlord more than 6 months from the matters arising, the complaint being a cumulative aggravation that his windows had not yet been renewed.
5. Paragraph 39(e) of the Scheme states that “the Ombudsman will not investigate complaint which, in its opinion, were not brought to the attention of the member as a formal complaint within a reasonable period which would normally be within 6 months of the matters arising”.
6. It follows that after carefully considering all the evidence, in accordance with paragraph 39(e) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the historical aspects of the complaint are outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.

Background and summary of events

Background and policies

7. The resident has been an assured tenant of the landlord, at the property, from 3 December 2001.
8. The landlord has adopted a three-stage formal complaints policy, whereby it aims to provide a response to a complaint at stage one within 10 working days. 
9. Where a complainant is dissatisfied with the outcome of their complaint at stage one, they may request the matter be escalated to stage two of the complaints procedure.  The landlord will review any request made and determine whether or not it should be escalated through the process.
10. Complaints which were brought to the landlord’s attention more than 12 months from when the incident occurred, will not be investigated.
11. The landlord’s compensation policy sets out circumstances in which the landlord may offer compensation, which includes where there has been a finding of service failure, where there has been a failure to complete repairs and where there has been failure to resolve a problem.

Summary of events

12. On 25 February 2019, the resident made a complaint to the landlord about the length of time it was taking to receive new windows. Having received no response from the landlord, he chased this up by sending the complaint again in an email of 6 March 2019. The landlord’s first response to the resident was in a letter dated 29 April 2019 but it does not state when the complaint was received. The resident, having not received the response, called the landlord to chase this in May 2019.
13. During this telephone call, the resident stated that he had been trying to get new windows for the past eight years.  The landlord explained the cyclical works and stock condition process, although it arranged an inspection to check the condition of the windows, given the resident’s concern about the condition of them.
14. On 16 May 2019, an inspection of the windows went ahead and the landlord agreed to replace the lounge window sash and frame and repair the bathroom and kitchen window.
15. On the same date, the resident contacted the landlord to ask for compensation for increased heating bills that he said he had suffered as a result of the poor condition of the windows.  In response, the landlord asked him to provide comparable evidence of the increase by 20 May 2019.
16. On 20 May 2019, the landlord responded to the complaint at stage one of its complaints process.  It did not uphold the complaint, finding that there had been no issues reported with the windows since 2017 and that the issues reported back then had been responded to and repaired. In terms of compensation, no evidence of a comparable increase had been provided by the resident.
17. The resident continued to contact the landlord about his dissatisfaction with not yet having new windows and the heating costs he said he had incurred as a result and on 24 May 2019, the resident requested that his complaint be escalated to stage two of the landlord’s complaint process.
18. In response to the resident’s ongoing dissatisfaction and issues he continued to raise, the landlord advised him on 28 May 2019 that it would inspect the windows of the scheme, to assess the condition and need for replacement.
19. On 14 June 2019, the planned inspection went ahead, and it was determined that the scheme windows, which were due to be replaced in 2023, would be replaced in the 2019/20 financial year.
20. Correspondence between the resident and landlord continued, with the resident providing the landlord with 10 years of heating bills on 21 June 2019. The landlord responded that this did not evidence a comparable increase in heating costs.
21. On 17 July 2019, the landlord advised that the works to the windows was due to commence. In February 2020, the windows were replaced.  
22. The resident contacted this Service regarding his continued dissatisfaction with the length of time it had taken the landlord to replace the windows and its response to the complaint and its failure to escalate it through its complaints procedure.
23. Following input from this Service, on 4 May 2020, the landlord reopened the complaint, with it providing a further response on 18 May 2020.
24. In its response, the landlord set out the history and chronology of reports of issues with windows and their repair between 2011 and 2017, where six reports of issues with the windows were made.  The complaint was not upheld, with the landlord finding that it had responded appropriately to the reports.
25. On 3 June 2020, the resident communicated that he wanted his complaint to be escalated through the complaints process, referring to historical matters and incidents dating back to 2009 regarding window repair and replacement issues. He stated that the works done by the landlord in the past had not resolved the damp and mould in the property and referred it to photographs which he had attached. He added that from February to May 2019, his gas bill was approximately £139, but the same period a year later, his gas bill was approximately £100, which he attributed to the windows having been replaced. 
26. On 9 June 2020, the landlord responded advising that it would not be escalating the complaint. It explained that the resident had included information which was not part of original complaint and stated that its stance remained as it was previously. It would not be offering compensation dating back to 2009 and that it would only deal with matters pertaining to the last 12 months.

Assessment and findings

27. Once on notice, the landlord was obliged to carry out repairs to the windows, within a reasonable period of time, in accordance with the terms of the tenancy and in law.  The law does not specify what a reasonable period of time is; this depends on the individual circumstances of the case.
28. The landlord was also required to maintain and where appropriate, to replace the windows, ensuring that the Government’s ‘Decent Homes Standards’ in respect of windows were met. In accordance with these standards, there is an assumption that windows in flats are replaced every 30 years, to prevent falling into a condition of disrepair.
29. Planned works are often major works that are scheduled to take place at defined intervals, to maintain, repair or replace external or common parts of the building and structures, including windows.  In this case the windows were due to be replaced at the property and indeed, the scheme, in 2023, under the landlord’s planned works program. This was appropriate because it was within the defined period of time to prevent them from being classified as having fallen into disrepair; that is not to say, however, that the windows could not fall into a condition of disrepair earlier.
30. Upon notice of the resident’s dissatisfaction with the condition of the windows at the property, the landlord acted appropriately by way of discussing his concerns with him and then by arranging an inspection, which took place quickly. The landlord’s actions were appropriate because notwithstanding the fact that the windows were not yet due to be replaced under its planned works program it did not rely on this defined schedule but took time to listen to the resident, demonstrating a taking seriously of his concerns and took steps to investigate the problem by arranging an inspection shortly thereafter.
31. Having carried out the inspection and agreeing to carry out some repair and replacement works, the resident’s continued dissatisfaction with the landlord’s response led to the landlord carrying out an additional inspection of the scheme, which led to the planned works to replace the windows being brought forward by three years.
32. The additional inspection, this time of the wider scheme, further demonstrates the landlord’s commitment to resolving the complaint, its actions ensuring that any wider repair issues were properly identified; it did not consider the matter in silo, instead assessing the broader picture. Once the broader picture was established, the landlord made the decision to bring the planned works forward, communicating this to the resident and carrying them out eight months later.
33. Whilst the resident is dissatisfied about the landlord’s handling of historic repairs and planned works scheduling and changes to it (which are not being investigated by this Service due to the reasons set out in the jurisdictional section of this report), the Ombudsman finds that the landlord responded appropriately and reasonably to the issues raised in 2019.
34. The Ombudsman find this because the landlord responded to the resident’s concerns quickly and took time to listen to his concerns and re-evaluate the situation when he remained dissatisfied following the inspection of his windows alone and not the scheme.  The two inspections were appropriate, as were its actions that followed; arranging repair and then latterly, replacement of the scheme windows, recognising that more large-scale works were needed. These actions were in direct response to the complaint – the landlord showed that it acted on the concerns raised, took them seriously and took steps to resolve the situation, reflecting on its position when the resident continued to be dissatisfied.
35. Turning to the handling of the complaint itself, the original complaint has been provided to this Service by the resident. Thus, there is discrepancy in the landlord’s assertions which indicates that the landlord did not maintain adequate records of the complaint. In addition, it has no records of the further communication of March 2019. It is the responsibility of the landlord to maintain adequate records of contacts with its residents in relation to the properties. It is not clear when the letter, dated 29 April 2019 was received by the resident, however, the telephone call of May 2019 indicates that there was a delay of approximately 10 weeks from the resident’s formal complaint to the landlord communicating with him.  
36. Further to the above, the response at stage one of the landlord’s complaints procedure was delayed, having not been sent within the timeframe articulated in its complaints policy and this delay was not acknowledged or apologised for by it. Moreover, the landlord did not communicate effectively with the resident regarding the complaints procedure, following its initial stage one response and the resident’s continued dissatisfaction.
37. Whilst the landlord was entitled to decline to escalate the complaint, it did not make clear whether the complaint was closed or whether it was declining to escalate it, which led to confusion around where in the process the complaint was and next steps. It is fundamentally important that a landlord is transparent and makes clear to a complainant where a complaint is in its procedure and how a complainant may request to escalate a complaint, or not as the case may be and provides information as to the option of bringing the matter to this Service. The landlord did not do this.
38. The landlord’s second stage one complaint response following intervention from this Service was more thorough in its setting out of the chronology of historic repairs, although it also stated, in its response to the resident’s escalation request that it would not do so. One of the reasons stated was that it would not investigate historical matters which were more than 12 months old. This served to contradict its earlier relay of historical repairs and its responses and findings that it had acted appropriately, which was unhelpful; leaving the resident feeling voiceless in the historical aspects he wanted the landlord to address. It is important to be clear here that this Service would not expect a landlord to investigate historical concerns, as described in the jurisdictional section of this report and for the reasons aforementioned.
39. This report has noted that there were delays in the landlord taking action on the formal complaint and then following its process in dealing with it. It has also discussed the issue of the substandard response to the stage one decision. It is concluded that compensation is warranted for the landlord’s failings with respect to this aspect of the complaint.
40. In terms of complaint outcome, the windows were appropriately replaced and the landlord offered to reimburse the resident additionally incurred costs as a result of the windows, should he be able to evidence a comparable increase, which was reasonable.  It was reasonable because the landlord was not obliged to make this offer – compensation including reimbursement of utility bills is not an automatic right – and showed good will in responding to the resident’s request for compensation in this way.
41. Having made an offer to reimburse the resident for any comparable increase, however, the resident had a reasonable expectation that this compensation would be forthcoming.  The landlord was not required to reimburse money for the last ten years but it missed an opportunity in not making this clear earlier on, before the resident had obtained the records and thereby did not effectively manage his expectations.  It would be reasonable for the landlord to honour this offer back to the point in time where it identified that the windows required repair, that being, June 2019.  A recommendation has been made in this regard.

Determination

42. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Scheme, there was no maladministration in respect of the complaint about the landlord’s response to reports of issues with the windows/request for their replacement.
43. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Scheme, there was service failure by the landlord in respect of its complaints handling.

Reasons

44. There was no maladministration by the landlord in respect of its response to the reports of issues with the windows and the request to replace them, insofar as the landlord, having been notified of the resident’s dissatisfaction with this, took steps to hear the concerns, investigate and address the issues, initially by offering repair and latterly replacement.
45. There was service failure by the landlord in respect of its complaints handling, beginning form the late acknowledgement and response to his original complaint of February 2019. Its response to the complaint was provided outside of the timescales set out in its complaints policy, it failed to communicate effectively with regards to the complaint procedure, including the escalation process and whether it would consider historic matters and did not sufficiently manage the resident’s expectations in respect of compensation.

Order and recommendations

Order

46. The landlord is to pay the resident £200 for the service failures identified in its complaints handling.
47. The landlord is to contact the resident to discuss to arrange for a meeting to clarify the appropriate document with respect to his Tenancy Agreement Appendix A request. Following the meeting the landlord should provide written clarification on how the matter was concluded. 

Recommendations

48. If not already done so, the landlord to offer and pay compensation to the resident for the comparable price increase in heating from June 2019 to when the windows were replaced in February 2020, if supporting evidence has been provided.

49. The landlord to make clear in its complaints policy and procedural guidance documents, that complaints may not be escalated and reasons why this may be the case.