Royal Borough Of Greenwich (202210082)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202210082

Royal Borough Of Greenwich

22 May 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 the resident’s:
1. Reports of repairs.
2. Request for a refund of council tax.
The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

Background

The resident was a secure tenant of the landlord, and her tenancy started in August 2004. At the time of raising her complaint, the resident lived in a 3 bed maisonette flat in a block. While the resident was decanted, so the landlord could complete repairs in late 2022, she made a permanent move into a different property through the local authority choice based lettings scheme. The landlord does not have any vulnerabilities recorded for the resident.
In late March 2021 (the exact date is unclear) the resident reported a leak from the soil pipe into her property. The landlord attended and “drilled a hole” at the bottom of the pipe to allow the waste to flow away. The landlord reattended on 1 April 2021 to replace a section of the soil pipe. The resident contacted the landlord on 10 April 2021 to make a complaint and said she had waste water “pouring” into her property for over a month.
The resident reported a “sewage leak” on 12 April 2021 and it was found the soil pipe was connected to a ‘rain hopper’ on the guttering system. The landlord corrected the pipe on 10 May 2021. The landlord completed an inspection of the property on the same day and identified remedial repairs needed, as a result of the leak.
The landlord sent the resident a letter on 25 August 2021, and explained what repairs it had done. It said it had passed the remedial repairs on to its contractor who would book an appointment with her It apologised that the repairs had taken “longer to resolve than expected”. The resident contacted the landlord on 1 September 2021 to make a complaint, and said that she was left for “weeks” with sewage leaking into her property, and she was “very upset” by the issue.
It does not appear the remedial works took place in 2021, and the evidence shows the landlord later asked its contractor to start the remedial works in January 2022. It does not appear the remedial works took place in January 2022.
The landlord completed a survey of the resident’s property on 5 April 2022 to identify works needed in relation to damp and mould, and other repairs. Due to the extent of the works required, it decided it needed to temporarily decant the resident to avoid disruption. In November 2022, while decanted, the resident surrendered her tenancy and took occupation of another property, with a different landlord.
The landlord sent the resident its stage 1 complaint response on 25 November 2022. The response listed the repairs it had completed and explained its investigation had identified “many failings” in its handling of the repairs, for which it apologised. The landlord offered the resident £550 in compensation, made up of:
1. £100 for the delay in responding to the complaint.
2. £200 for the delay in completing repairs.
3. £250 for the “distress and inconvenience” caused.
The resident was unhappy with the landlord’s stage 1 complaint response, and asked her complaint to be taken to stage 2. The landlord sent its stage 2 complaint response on 14 April 2023, upheld the resident’s complaint, and made an increased offer of £750 in compensation, made up of:
1. £150 for the complaint handling delays at stage 1 and 2.
2. £250 for the delays in carrying out repairs.
3. £350 for the “distress and inconvenience” caused.
The resident contacted this Service on 14 April 2023 and asked us to investigate her complaint. She said that because of the length of time taken to complete the repair, and poor communication, she found the offer of compensation “insulting”. She also expressed a concern about the length of time taken to complete the complaints process, and she had not yet received a rent refund she was owed from the decant.

Assessment and findings

Jurisdiction

What the Ombudsman can and cannot consider is called the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. This is governed by the Scheme. When a complaint is brought to this service, the Ombudsman must consider all the circumstances of the case, as there are sometimes reasons why a complaint will not be investigated.
After carefully considering all the evidence, in accordance with paragraph 42(j) of the Scheme, the landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for a refund of council tax is outside of our jurisdiction to investigate.
When the resident made her complaint about the landlord’s handling of the repairs, and the associated decant, she requested a refund of the council tax she had paid. The resident also raised her concern about this when she asked us to investigate her complaint, in April 2023. The evidence indicates that the landlord refused to refund the resident’s council tax for the period she was decanted, as it was of the view she was liable to pay it. The landlord’s stage 2 complaint response advised the resident to contact the council tax team if she wanted to challenge this decision.
Paragraph 42(j) of the Scheme states that the Ombudsman will not investigate complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion fall properly within the jurisdiction of another Ombudsman, regulator or complaint handling body.
The landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for a refund of council tax was dealt with by the landlord in its capacity as the local authority. The Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman (LGSCO) can review complaints about a local authority’s administration of council tax. We have therefore determined that this aspect of the resident’s complaint is better suited to the LGSCO. The resident may wish to raise a complaint with the LGSCO about the landlord’s handling of her request for a council tax refund.

Repairs

Section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 obliges the landlord to keep in repair the structure and exterior of the property, and keep in repair and proper working order the installations for the supply of water and sanitation. The resident’s tenancy agreement states that the landlord is responsible for the drains, gutters, and external pipes of the property.
The landlord’s repairs guide for residents states that it has 3 categories of responsive repair, which are:
1. Emergency, which it will attend within 2 hours.
2. Urgent, which it will attend between 1 and 5 working days.
3. Non-urgent which it will attend within 20 working days.
The repairs guide states that a blocked drains, and burst pipes, are categorised as emergency repairs.
The landlord’s remedial works rehousing procedure states that when a resident is temporarily decanted for it to do works, and they make their own arrangements for temporary accommodation, they will receive a “rent adjustment” for the period the property was uninhabitable.
The landlord accepted that its handling of the repairs was poor and the time taken to complete repairs was unreasonable and it identified “many failings” in its complaint investigation. The landlord’s various inspections identified multiple repairs throughout the resident’s property. It is not possible to determine how the compensation offered was calculated against individual repair issue. As such, this investigation has considered the overall offer of compensation and whether it fully put things right for the resident, as a whole. However, to promote learning for the landlord, this investigation has considered the landlord’s handling the repairs, and identified areas of particular concern, and points of learning.
The evidence shows that the landlord attended to numerous reports of leaks from the sewage pipe in late March and early April 2021. The landlord attended outside of its target repairs timescales, a fact it accepted in its complaint responses, which was a failing in its handling of the matter. The resident was evidently distressed and the conditions caused by the leak, that the landlord attended outside of its target timescales increased the detriment caused to the resident.
Following the damage caused by the above leak, the landlord sought to book remedial works with its contractor in June 2021. This was 2 months after it had resolved the leak, and was outside of its target timescales, and an unreasonable delay which caused a further inconvenience.
The evidence shows that the works did not take place when it was booked in June 2021. Internal emails, from September 2021, show the landlord had booked repairs for a leak but the officer investigating the resident’s complaint could not “see anything on the system” about the repair. In another email, from September 2021, the landlord sent an email to its contractor stating it had booked works in June 2021 but it had “not been completed”. This is evidence that the landlord’s oversight of contractors completing repairs on its behalf was poor. This lack of oversight of its contractors can reasonably be concluded to have contributed to its overall poor handling of the repairs.
We have seen no evidence the landlord sought to explain the delays at that time, or offer an apology, which was inappropriate. The resident had expressed her distress at its handling of the repairs, the lack of proactive follow up increased the distress and inconvenience she experienced. The evidence shows that the landlord did not appropriately oversee repairs being carried out on its behalf by contractors. The records provided show that, on multiple occasions, contractors did not progress with works the landlord booked, and it did not follow up to see if works were complete until the resident raised further concerns. This cost her time and trouble, as the onus was placed on the resident to chase up works that were already raised.
The landlord sent the resident a letter in August 2021, in response to the complaint she had made in April 2021. That this was not sent as a formal complaint response was inappropriate, and will be addressed in detail later in this report. While the letter appropriately apologised for the delays in completing repairs, it failed to offer appropriate redress for the delays up to that point. It also failed to show learning about the delays, and what it could do to prevent similar delays happening again. This was inappropriate and the lack of learning shown is evidenced by the fact it continued to make similar mistakes later on.
Following a failure to complete the remedial works in June 2021, the landlord sought to book works in again with its contractor to start in January 2022 to address issues with the soil pipe and the bathroom. The evidence shows that the landlord’s contractor did not attend until March 2022, this was a further unreasonable delay and well outside of its target timeframes. The resident was caused a further disappointment of the delayed repair, which was rebooked, not going ahead within an appropriate timeframe.
When it sought to complete the works in March 2022 it is evident that the works were more complex than first thought, and the resident needed to be decanted due to disruption. This further delay was outside of the landlord’s control, and the decision to decant the resident was reasonable, as it sought to limit the disruption caused to her. It is, however, concerning that the landlord had not inspected sooner to understand the full scope of works needed, given the resident had been raising concerns about the general conditions in her property since April 2021.
It is noted that the resident was unhappy with the temporary decant accommodation the landlord offered, and decided to make her own arrangements. While we note the concerns the resident raised, the evidence shows that the temporary accommodation was offered under the homelessness legislation. As such, the landlord was acting in its capacity as a local authority. It is therefore not within the remit of this Service to consider the suitability of the accommodation. If the resident wishes to pursue this matter further, she may wish to raise this with the LGSCO, as it is the appropriate body to investigate such complaints.
The evidence shows that the resident was told the temporary decant would last for “6 to 8 weeks”. It is evident that was not the case, and works did not even start until September 2022, 5 months after the resident was decanted. We have seen evidence of numerous emails the resident sent the landlord between April and August 2022, chasing the progress on the repairs. In the emails she expressed a concern that she had not received updates, and the landlord had not collected the keys, so it could start works. The evidence shows that the resident waited an unreasonable time to get responses to emails.
The landlord sent the resident an email on 12 September 2022 stating it now had the keys and was going to visit the property to identify to raise a “detailed specification of works”. It is concerning that after the resident was decanted for 5 months, the landlord was not more proactive in getting access the property, and was still unaware of the extent of works needed. The resident was evidently distressed and inconvenienced due to living away from her home. That the landlord was not proactive in starting the repairs, it had previously told her would take 6 to 8 weeks, was inappropriate and a further failing in its handling of the matter. The resident was cost time and trouble in chasing the landlord for updates, and trying to arrange to hand over the keys.
The landlord’s stage 1 complaint response, of November 2022, was detailed in explaining what repairs it had completed, and accepted it had attended outside of its target timeframes. This was appropriate, and its response showed genuine contrition for the service the resident had received. While this Service welcomes the level of detail and acceptance of failings in relation to the repairs, the stage 1 response does not show appropriate learning. Given the number of failings identified in its handling of the repairs, it would have been appropriate to set out what it would do to prevent similar failings happening again. That it did not do so was inappropriate.
The landlord’s stage 2 complaint response, from April 2023, went some way to putting the above failing right. While offering a similarly detailed discussion of the individual repairs, it also showed some learning in relation to its poor communication and said it would discuss issues with the repairs team for “future cases”. While this does show some learning, given the level of failings it identified, a more thorough review of how it could prevent future failings would have been appropriate. As such, a relevant order is made below.
The landlord’s stage 2 complaint response stated it had sent the “rent adjustment” to the relevant team for approval. Given the concerns the resident raised on this matter, and that we have seen no evidence the landlord followed up on this, an order is made below.
The landlord accepted that its handling of the repairs was poor, and there were multiple failings. The detriment the resident experienced as a result of the failings was significant. She was distressed at the conditions at her property, and was inconvenienced by a lengthy decant. While she was decanted, the landlord delayed progressing with the repair, and the resident was further inconvenienced by needing to chase it for updates that were not forthcoming.
The landlord offered the resident a total of £650 for its handling of the repairs (delay, distress, and inconvenience). This Service welcomes the landlord’s decision to offer compensation in order to try and put right its evident failings. While the landlord’s offer of compensation is recognised, for the following reasons we have determined that its offer of compensation did not fully put things right for the resident:
1. The length of time the repairs were outstanding, up to the point the resident surrendered her tenancy.
2. The lack of oversight of its contractors.
3. The lack of proactive follow up on repairs.
4. Its poor communication.
5. The evident distress the resident experienced at the conditions reported.
6. The significant delay from the resident being decanted before it started works (5 months).
7. The inconvenience the resident experienced chasing the landlord for responses, that sometimes went unanswered, or were delayed.

Complaint handling

At the time of the resident’s complaint, the landlord operated a 2 stage complaints procedure. Its procedure stated that it would respond to both stage 1 and 2 complaints within 15 working days.
At the time the resident made her complaint, the timeframes set out in the landlord’s complaint procedure for stage 1 complaints were not in line with the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code). It is noted that the landlord has since amended its complaints procedure, and the complaint response timeframes now match those set out in the Code.
The resident first made a complaint about the landlord’s handling of repairs in April 2021. There is no evidence to indicate the landlord opened a formal complaint investigation at that time. This was inappropriate and a failing in its complaint handling. The resident was inconvenienced by trying to make a complaint and experiencing a hard to access complaints process.
In response to the resident’s complaint, of April 2021, the landlord sent the resident a letter in August 2021 setting out its position on the repair, and apologising for its handling of the matter. it is reasonable to conclude that this was a complaint response. However, that it did not set out at what stage the complaint was at, or how the resident could escalate her complaint, was inappropriate. The Code states that a landlord’s complaint response must do so; that it did not was a further failing in its complaint handling. This further supports the conclusion that the landlord operated an unfair and hard to access complaints procedure.
The resident made a further complaint in September 2021, and the landlord did open a formal complaint at that stage, which was appropriate. However, it did not respond within its 15 working day target timeframe, which was a further failing in its complaint handling. We have seen evidence that the landlord did tell the resident its response would be delayed, in an email on 21 September 2021, which was appropriate. However, we have seen no other evidence that the landlord sought to do this again in the following year before it issued its response.
This Service has seen numerous emails the resident sent, throughout late 2021 and 2022, asking to escalate her complaint to the next stage, as she had not had a response. The landlord sent the resident email on 2 December 2021 explaining she could not escalate her complaint until she had received a stage 1 response. While it is noted this was in line with its procedure, that it did not set out when it hoped to respond to the complaint, which had already taken 2 months, was unreasonable. This is further evidence the landlord operated a protracted and hard to access complaints process.
The landlord sent another email, on 12 August 2022, stating it could not escalate the resident’s complaint and “if” she had exhausted its procedure she could take her complaint to this Service. It is concerning that the landlord did not appear to know at what stage the resident’s complaint was at.
The resident was cost time and trouble by needing to contact this Service, on 17 November 2022, in order to get a stage 1 complaint response from the landlord. The landlord sent the complaint response on 25 November 2022, 1 year and 2 months after it first opened the complaint investigation. This was well outside of the timeframes set out in its policy and the Code. That it apologised and offered redress for the delay was appropriate. However, that it offered no explanation, or learning, about the delay was unreasonable. The resident was evidently frustrated by the lack of explanation, as set out in her stage 2 complaint.
There was a further, albeit shorter, delay in the landlord sending its stage 2 complaint response. The stage 2 response was sent 5 months after it was made, which was an unreasonable delay. The stage 2 complaint response went some way to putting right the shortcomings of its stage 1 response, and gave an explanation of why there were complaint handling delays. This was appropriate. It also explained what steps it had taken to reduce the delays with its complaint responses, which was reasonable in the circumstances.
The resident experienced an unfair, protracted, and hard to access complaints process. The landlord failed to manage her expectations about delays, and at points was unclear what stage the complaint was at. It was appropriate to apologise, and offer redress. But, the compensation the landlord offered failed to reflect that the resident had actually first made a complaint in April 2021, without receiving a formal response. The learning the landlord showed, and the steps taken to improve its complaints service, are welcomed. However, given the circumstances in this case we have determined that the £150 it offered for its complaint handling, did not fully put things right for the resident.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of repairs.
In accordance with paragraph 42(j) the landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for a refund of council tax is outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction to investigate.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

Orders

Within 4 weeks the landlord is ordered to:
1. Apologise for the failings identified in this report.
2. Pay the resident £1,300 in compensation, made up of:
  1. The £750 it offered in its stage 2 complaint response (if it has not already done so).
  2. A further £350 in recognition of the distress and inconvenience caused by its handling of the resident’s reports of repairs.
  3. A further £200 in recognition of the time, trouble, and inconvenience caused by its handling of the resident’s complaint.
3. If it has not already done so, write to the resident to set out its final position on the rent adjustment, outlining if she is due a refund and how she can claim it.
4. Instruct its staff responsible for dealing with complaints to complete our E learning on Dispute Resolution.
Within 8 weeks the landlord is ordered to:
1. Complete a review of its handling of the resident’s reports of repairs, and identify key points of learning to improve its service, with a particular focus on:
  1. Its poor communication with the resident.
  2. The lack of oversight and coordination with its contractors.
  3. The lack of follow up on repairs.