Newlon Housing Trust (202322386)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202322386

Newlon Housing Trust

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 resident’s reports of:
1. Repairs required to the property following a fire.
2. Antisocial behaviour (ASB).
The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

The resident has occupied the property, a 3-bedroom first floor flat, since August 2021 and lives there with her 2 teenage daughters.
On 3 January 2023 the resident reported that the neighbour in the property below (the neighbour) had damaged the lock on the communal door by kicking it and said this had been an issue before. The resident asked to speak with the landlord before anything formal was recorded, so it spoke with her about the ASB on 19 January 2023 and this led to it being recorded formally on 27 January 2023.
A fire then occurred in the neighbour’s property on 3 April 2023 and the police and fire brigade inspected the resident’s property and put a padlock on the front door as it had been broken by the emergency services. They gave the resident the key, so she could continue to live there. However, she initially stayed with a friend, but has been staying with her mother and does not want to return to the property as she feels unsafe. She has asked to be moved to a 3 bedroom house with a garden near to family.

Summary of events

On 5 April 2023 the landlord created a job for the resident’s door to be repaired and, on the same day, she told the landlord that she did not want to go back to the property. The landlord wanted to know whether there was any other damage to the property following the fire and sent a surveyor on 6 April 2023 to assess the damage. Operatives attended to inspect the property on 12 and 18 April 2023 but could not gain access. An internal email sent by landlord staff on 19 April 2023 recorded that a new door was needed.
The resident sent a letter of complaint to the landlord dated 5 May 2023. It said:
1. On 23 February 2023 she had emailed the Fire Safety Team about concerns she had about damage to doors and other matters, and she had received no reply.
2. She had been told by the landlord on 4 April 2023 that fixing her door was not urgent and on 5 April 2023 someone she spoke to on the phone was rude when discussing securing the property.
3. She met a surveyor at the property on 6 April 2023 and a contractor also attended and made the “main door” secure. The surveyor said they wanted to meet her at the property on 12 April 2023 but she did not hear anything.
4. Since the fire, the contractor had called her at times to say it was on site and needed letting in to repair the door, but she was not home and no appointment had been made.
5. She felt she had been left with no support and there was a lack of communication. It was difficult to speak with anyone and one daughter had had her studies disrupted and the other was scared to go back to the property.
6. She did not want to return to the property because of the issues she had with the neighbour, including drug use and fighting.
7. She wanted compensating for the cost of removals as she moved items from the property for safety reasons, and having decorated the property and laying expensive flooring in 2 rooms.
On 12 May 2023, the landlord noted it would need more information/evidence in order to take action in relation to the alleged ASB by the neighbour. It did consider though, whether it was reasonable to look to move the neighbour based on the resident’s concerns over their behaviour. In terms of repairs, the communal hallway was redecorated the following day, on 13 May 2023, and the landlord noted that the resident’s property had only minor smoke damage and would need to be inspected if there was a claim of more damage.
The landlord emailed the resident on 18 May 2023, when it said that it:
1. Was sorry for the lack of contact and that she was given the impression fixing her door was not urgent. It explained it had to initially ensure the door was safe and then it would take time to make/source doors, as they were fire doors.
2. Had asked the Service Centre team leader to look in to her concern over how she was spoken to and it was liaising with the Fire Safety team over its lack of contact.
3. Understood the property was not damaged significantly by fire. There was just smoke damage to the front of the property and damage to the door. Therefore, she could return once the repairs were done. It said the street door was safe and secure.
4. Said the contractor had texted the resident on 4 and 5 May 2023 to suggest a visit on 15 May 2023 to fit a door, but had had no reply. It was keen to get this done and once the new door was fitted, she could collect the keys, or it could arrange for the keys to be brought to a place nearby. Therefore, it asked her to liaise with the contractor over an appointment.
5. Was sorry she had had issues with the neighbour and understood she may have been reluctant to report it for fear of reprisals. It said it hoped to move the neighbour to a different property, but could not discuss any further details of her case with her. However, her concerns over the neighbour would be investigated.
6. Had a transfer policy that allowed transfers for those residents who needed to move due to an urgent medical need. She was invited to complete a transfer form and provide supporting medical evidence, if she felt she met the threshold test. Alternatively, if she had evidence she could send, in exceptional circumstances it could consider a discretionary transfer for safety.
7. Noted her request to be compensated, and would respond to this when it replied to her complaint. However, it explained there would be no compensation for the cost of decorating or flooring, as it would expect her to return to the property.
On 23 May 2023 the resident was notified the door to her property had been renewed and the keys could be collected, but she reiterated she did not want to return.
The resident spoke with the landlord on 16 June 2023 and said she was unhappy she had not had a response to her complaint. In addition, she had not received the keys to the property as no one had arranged to meet her. She explained she had moved her items out as she did not trust that the property was secure.
The landlord sent a stage 1 response to the complaint on 19 June 2023. It said it had received the complaint on 18 May 2023 and it was about its poor handling of repairs following a fire as well as poor communication. It noted the resident wanted it to address ASB she had reported, pay compensation and rehouse her. It said:
1. It accepted its Fire Safety Team did not respond to an enquiry she made on 23 February 2023.
2. It would look in to her report of ASB and about a call centre staff member having been rude to her.
3. It had arranged for a surveyor to attend on 27 June 2023 to assess what repairs were needed.
4. It apologised for inconvenience caused to her.
5. She was invited to submit an application to be rehoused along with supporting evidence.
6. It offered a £25 voucher by way of an apology.
The landlord called and emailed the resident on 26 June 2023 to explain it wanted to arrange for a surveyor to attend and an appointment was made for 3 July 2023.
On 13 July 2023 the resident asked for the complaint to be escalated to stage 2.
The landlord notified the resident on 14 August 2023 that it was not taking any further action in relation to the ASB report because it had no further information or evidence to consider. However, the resident was advised to report any further issues of ASB.
On 8 September 2023, the landlord left a message for the resident and sent her an email, explaining the fire doors had been replaced. An internal landlord email of the following day said it had spoken with the resident who said she had not been communicated with when contractors were attending the property. She was now happy with the information provided by the Fire Safety Team but she remained unhappy with the lack of communication following the fire, and said the ASB meant she did not feel safe. The resident reiterated she remained unhappy with the landlord’s service on 10 September 2023. It responded the following day by advising her when a fire safety assessment would be taking place.
The landlord issued its stage 2 response on 12 October 2023. It said:
1. It had logged a separate formal complaint about the behaviour of a member of staff and that would be investigated.
2. An ASB report had been made on 19 January 2023 and someone had contacted the resident and left a message, but received no reply and no evidence of ASB had been provided.
3. It acknowledged the Fire Safety Team had not responded to correspondence.
4. It had asked its asset management team to verify the status of the repair to the communal areas including the glass/letterbox to the communal front door and works that were required to her property with an estimated time of completion if applicable.
5. Its records did not show her to have a medical condition, so it had raised a vulnerability assessment case and she would receive a form to complete so her account could be updated accordingly. A rehousing or transfer could only be considered on medical grounds, so she would be sent a transfer application to complete and return with supporting medical evidence.
6. It accepted a surveyor had stated that a further inspection of her property was required and would be carried out by insurers, and it noted her concerns regarding the safety of the property following the incident. It said that, at stage 1, the caseworker should have ensured that the information provided was accurate and that additional compensation was offered in relation to her experience and the impact this has had. It partially upheld the complaint and offered an additional £325 compensation; making a total award of £350.

Events after the landlord’s complaints process

The landlord has said all remedial work was completed at the property by 31 October 2023 (that being the redecoration of communal hallways and the resident’s bathroom and kitchen renewal). These were standard repairs but included installation of a new fire door and frame, replastering and decoration.
The landlord wrote to the resident on 8 November 2023 and said, following its stage 2 response, it had decided to apply a rent refund from the date of the fire (3 April to 27 June 2023) to cover the period the property was deemed by its surveyor as uninhabitable. After that date, whilst some decorative works remained, the property was deemed habitable. If the resident claimed she could not move back in as it was not safe to do so, she would need to provide evidence to support that. Alternatively, she could look at rehousing options herself, including mutual exchange. It reiterated that, in terms of tenancy transfers, this would be on medical grounds or on discretion in exceptional circumstances.
A credit adjustment was made to the resident’s account on 14 November 2023, in the amount of £1,771.64 (13 weeks at rent of £136.28 per week).
On 10 January 2024 the landlord advised the resident that the neighbour would not be returning to the property next door. The resident replied on 23 January 2024 and said even though the neighbour was not returning, she did not want to return to the property.
The resident made an application for a transfer but the landlord rejected it on 12 April 2024 on the basis that she did not meet the threshold for medical priority. The resident appealed the landlord’s decision on 26 April 2024, on both medical and safety grounds and this is currently under consideration.

Assessment and findings

Resident’s reports of repairs required following a fire

The landlord’s Repairs Policy says it is the landlord’s responsibility to maintain common parts, repair back and front doors, internal walls but not internal painting and decorating. This is supported by the Tenancy Agreement which also says the resident had to allow the landlord or its contractors access for inspection/repairs. It says it will respond to emergencies within 24 hours to make safe and return later to complete works. Non-urgent repairs include repairs to doors and may take more than one visit. It also says its Service Centre will liaise with the contractors and residents to make appointments and in cases where it is necessary for a surveyor to inspect the property first, an appointment for this will also be arranged. Outstanding works should be monitored on a monthly basis.
In this case, it seems the resident’s door was made safe by the emergency services rather than the landlord, but she was provided with the key to a padlock put on the door so she had access to the property. The landlord arranged for a surveyor to inspect the property promptly, on 6 April 2023, in accordance with the Repairs Policy and it did then repair the door to the property, as well as the communal door by mid-May 2023, which was reasonable.
The resident and her children were clearly displaced on the night of the fire. Although the evidence shows the landlord offered the resident the keys back to the property in May 2023, in correspondence with this Service it has said its surveyor considered the property uninhabitable until June 2023. This was its reason for later applying a rent refund until that time. Therefore, irrespective of the landlord giving the resident the option to return to the property from May 2023, it is reasonable to find, based on the landlord’s own statement, that the earliest the resident could move home was June 2023.
The landlord did consider whether it was appropriate to decant the resident while work was going to be done at the neighbour’s property. However, as the resident had already moved out and had made it clear she did not intend to return, a decant was not required. As the resident relocated herself at no cost to the landlord, and continued to pay rent while the property was uninhabitable, it was appropriate for the landlord to reimburse her for the rent paid over that period.
The Ombudsman is satisfied the landlord complied with its obligations in terms of fixing the doors within a reasonable period, so once done, although there was some minor redecoration needed, it was appropriate to advise the resident she could return home in June 2023. The landlord went on to do some redecoration and reimbursed the resident for the rent she had paid while the property was not habitable, which was appropriate in the circumstances, to ensure she was not out of pocket financially.
The evidence suggests there was an issue with communication between the landlord and the resident after the fire. There were times when the resident was contacted to say a contractor was at the property and she had not been made aware in advance of their attendance. She was also told by a surveyor she would be contacted again after the initial visit, but this did not happen. The landlord also accepted her enquiries with the Fire Safety Team were not addressed promptly and noted her claim that a member of staff had been rude.
The resident also complained about not being kept informed about what action was being taken after the fire, and the evidence appears to support that. The landlord did accept though that its communication fell short, in terms of the Fire Safety team enquiry, incorrect information being given as to the cause of the fire and about the repairs. Having initially offered £25 compensation, it increased that by £325 to a total award of £350 compensation, in addition to the rent refund for 3 April to 27 June 2023.
The landlord’s Compensation Policy says where there has been a failure of service such as poor communication, compensation of £25 should be made. It goes on to say compensation should be considered if there has been a service failure, maladministration or severe maladministration and consideration should be given to how this affected the complainant. There has been maladministration, and where the landlord has attempted to put things right by not only offering compensation but trying to improve its service after receiving a complaint, this Service’s Remedies guidance suggests compensation up to a maximum of £600.
In this case, it is accepted the resident has been through a difficult time, and the landlord could have done more to advise her about the work planned. However, if the landlord’s communication regarding repairs had been better, the resident would have been more informed of action it was taking, but it would not have altered her overall position. That is because she had already moved all her belongings out and decided not to return to the property in any event. Therefore, it is not reasonable to expect the landlord to cover the cost of the resident’s removal costs. It was right though, for the landlord to offer the resident compensation for the frustration caused by its poor communication.
Although at stage 1 the compensation offered was too low, the landlord then increased the offer and the amount offered at stage 2 was proportionate to the poor service identified. As a result, the Ombudsman makes a finding of reasonable redress in relation to this part of the complaint.

Landlord’s handling of reports of ASB

The landlord’s ASB Policy says that once ASB has been reported, the action taken will be determined by the nature of the incident, the severity and frequency. In addition, what supporting evidence has been provided, including witnesses and what the complainant wants.
The resident had reported the neighbour having damaged the lock on the communal door prior to the fire, and although no evidence was provided to support the allegation, the landlord attempted to contact the resident but was unable to speak with her. Without evidence, there was little more the landlord could do at that point.
Following the fire, the resident told the landlord that she did not want to return to the property and wanted moving to a 3 bedroom house with a garden. She said she was scared to go home because there was drug use and shouting at the neighbouring property, and it was also affecting her children.
The neighbour had moved from the property after the fire, and despite the landlord not having been aware of the resident’s concerns until that point, internal emails show it took her report seriously. It considered moving the neighbour permanently as it would be easier to rehouse a single person than a family. It also encouraged the resident to keep records of any further ASB she experienced going forward; although there were no further issues after that because neither party returned to their properties.
Due to a lack of evidence and no further reports, the landlord was restricted in what it could do to address the report of ASB. While the resident may have been disappointed with that, and suspected the neighbour was the perpetrator of the ASB, evidence needed to be gathered in order for action to be taken against them. As that was not provided, the landlord’s decision to take no further action was reasonable in the circumstances.
The Ombudsman understands the resident was concerned about moving home. However, she could have moved back once the property was ready and certainly when she was told the neighbour had been rehoused and would not be returning. However, she chose not to, and her response indicates her primary focus was therefore to be rehoused.
The landlord correctly explained that in line with its Transfers Policy, a transfer could be applied for on medical grounds and the resident would need to complete a form and submit it along with medical evidence. The landlord also asked the resident to complete a vulnerabilities log which is in accordance with its Vulnerabilities policy although this was apparently not returned. The resident’s application for a transfer was submitted but not accepted and while the Ombudsman appreciates the resident is disappointed by the decision, it is satisfied the landlord’s reasoning was in line with its Transfers Policy, so it acted appropriately.
In terms of the landlord’s handling of the ASB overall, the Ombudsman is satisfied it took reasonable steps to address it but was limited in what action it could take due to the lack of evidence. Therefore it applied its ASB policy correctly. Despite that, it acknowledged the resident’s request to be rehoused and rightly managed her expectations in terms of eligibility to move. It has considered her application in line with its Transfer Policy and has therefore complied with its obligations throughout.

Landlord’s complaint handling

The landlord’s Complaints Procedure says a stage 1 complaint will be acknowledged within 5 working days and responded to within 10 working days from the date the complaint was logged and acknowledged. At stage 2 a response should be sent within 20 working days. An extension should not exceed a further 10 days without good reason. If an extension beyond 20 working days is required, it should be agreed by both parties and the resident should be supplied with the Ombudsman details. A complaint about a staff member will be recorded separately and investigated by their manager.
Although the resident’s complaint letter was dated 5 May 2023, the landlord did not receive it until 18 May 2023. It sent an initial response the same day, showing it took proactive steps to address some of the issues promptly, but its formal stage 1 response was sent 21 working days after it received the complaint. This means it failed to comply with the timescales in its Complaints Procedure and there is no evidence of the landlord notifying or agreeing with the resident, an extension of time. In fact, 3 days before it sent its response, the resident had notified the landlord that she was unhappy at how long things were taking.
It is disappointing the resident had to go to the trouble of chasing for a response, and that the landlord failed to consider what remedy, if any, was appropriate to address that, when it issued its stage 1 response.
The resident asked for the complaint to be escalated to stage 2 on 13 July 2023, and it took 64 working days for the landlord to issue its response. While the stage 2 response was comprehensive and addressed the issues that had been raised, it again failed to recognise that there had been a slight delay issuing a response at stage 1 and a significant delay at stage 2. No apology was offered and the fact there were delays at both stages is indicative of the landlord having not learned from its earlier mistake.
This amounts to maladministration, and the landlord’s Compensation Policy says it should have considered offering compensation in these circumstances, but it failed to do so. The fact the resident had to chase a response and the landlord made no attempt at stage 1 or stage 2 to address or remedy its failures in complaint handling, means compensation is appropriate. In line with this Service’s remedies guidance, £300 compensation would be appropriate in this case.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 53(b) of the Scheme, the landlord has made an offer of redress prior to investigation which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, resolves the complaint about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of repairs required following a fire.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was:
1. No maladministration in relation to the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of ASB.
2. Maladministration in relation to the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

Reasons

There were some communication issues over the repairs needed following the fire and this led to some frustration for the resident. However, she had already moved from the property and the landlord provided a rent refund for the period the property was uninhabitable. The landlord dealt with the repairs promptly and efficiently and offered compensation which overall was reasonable by way of a remedy.
The landlord provided comprehensive responses to the resident’s complaint; however, there was a delay in responding at both stage 1 and stage 2 which it failed to acknowledge or attempt to remedy.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

Within 4 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord should:
1. Apologise to the resident for the failings identified in this report.
2. Pay the resident £650 compensation made up of:
  1. £350 offered at stage 2 for its handling of the resident’s report of repairs following a fire (if it has not paid this amount already).
  2. £300 for the delays in its complaint handling.
1. Ensure the relevant staff are reminded of the timescales to respond to complaints and the importance of communicating with the resident if more time is needed to deal with a complaint.