Wolverhampton City Council (202303993)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202303993

Wolverhampton City Council

26 July 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 response to the resident’s reports about:
1. His request to have a water meter.
2. His request to have laminate flooring.
3. Anti-social behaviour.
4. The communal front door.
5. The smell of cigarettes at the property.
6. Staff conduct.
In addition, the Ombudsman has also investigated:
1. The landlords knowledge and information management.
2. The landlord’s complaint handling.

Background and summary of events

Background

The resident is a secure tenant of the property which is owned by the landlord and managed by a managing agent, which has responded to the resident’s complaint on behalf of the landlord. For ease of reference, this report will refer to the landlord to mean the landlord and its management agent. The property is a 2 bedroom flat on the 6th floor of a block and the resident has lived there since 2014. The landlord has no vulnerabilities recorded for the resident.
The resident’s tenancy agreement states as follows:
1. The landlord will maintain the structure and exterior of the property. It is not responsible for the supply or metering of mains water.
2. It will keep entrances, halls, rubbish chutes and other communal amenities clean, safe, secure and in working order and repair.
3. Residents agree not to smoke in the property in the presence of its officers.
4. A resident must not do anything which is likely to be, might become or is a nuisance, annoyance or inconvenience to other persons.
5. Residents must obtain its written permission prior to installing laminate or wooden flooring or flooring of a similar nature. If a resident installs such flooring without its prior written permission, it will require it to be removed and replaced with acceptable flooring.
The landlord’s anti-social behaviour (ASB) policy states as follows:
1. ASB is defined as conduct that has caused, or is likely to cause, harassment, alarm or distress to any person; conduct capable of causing nuisance or annoyance to a person in relation to that person’s occupation of residential premises; or conduct capable of causing housing-related nuisance or annoyance to any person.
2. It gives examples of nuisance being fly tipping and rubbish.
3. Following a report of ASB or nuisance, it will either provide the resident with advice at the first point of contact, or refer the matter to the ASB team or the Tenancy Management team for investigation. It will consider the resident’s needs and the harm the ASB or nuisance causes the resident.
The landlord’s permission procedure states as follows:
1. The tenancy agreement indicates a number of circumstances where the tenant is obliged to apply for and obtain landlord permission. This includes:
  1. The installation of laminate, wooden flooring or flooring of a similar nature.
  2. Modification to any existing water installations.
2. All applications for landlord’s permission should be made online using the appropriate form
3. The Tenancy Officer shall check on a daily basis and if in receipt of an application for landlord permission send an acknowledgement letter to the applicant within 5 days. They shall review the application and a decision shall be issued in writing within 28 working days for property requests.
The landlord’s responsive repairs policy states as follows:
It categorises repairs as follows:
1. Fix It Emergency – within 24 hours.
2. Fix It at your Convenience – within 20 calendar days.
3. Fix It Planned – within 90 calendar days.
Upon completion of a job it will identify resident satisfaction levels via a survey.
The landlord has a two-stage complaints process. When a complaint is received, the landlord aims to provide a response at stage 1 of its process within ten working days. At stage 2 it will respond within 20 working days. If further time is required at either stage it will keep the resident informed of the reason for the delay and when a response is likely to be provided. Complaints being dealt with as insurance claims, will not be dealt with as a complaint until the outcome of the claim is confirmed.

Summary of events

The resident submitted a complaint to the landlord on 25 April 2022 and stated as follows:
1. He had enquired about having a water meter on 9 February 2022 (this has not been seen by this Service) and again on 11 March 2022 but had heard nothing since. He stated that he was paying more than he should for water (£59.10 per month). He requested that the landlord consider compensation.
2. The communal front door was a hazard, as in high winds it could blow out of a tenant’s hand as it was difficult to keep hold of. The landlord had advised “months ago” that the door would be tightened but this had not been done.
3. There was a strong smell of smoke coming through the vent in the bathroom and making his property smell of smoke.
4. He had to continually pick up litter, in particular cigarette butts, off his balcony.
5. An unwelcome visitor had been harassing him by continually knocking on his door. The landlord had advised that anyone could be in the lobby area as it was communal area. He stated that having a buzzer system was supposed to stop unwanted visitors.
6. He asked if he could lay laminate flooring as he had seen other tenants doing so.
The landlord advised on 26 April 2022 that it would look into his concerns and get back to him. That same day it made internal enquiries in respect of the possibility of the water meter. It noted that the water supply was not straightforward and that a meter would likely not be possible due to the internal configuration of the pipework in the block.
On 27 April 2022 the landlord raised a job to tighten and check the front entrance door. It recorded a target date for this as 3 May 2022.
That same day (27 April 2022) the landlord provided responses to the resident’s “query” as follows:
1. It had reported the front entrance door to see what adjustments could be made to make it safer.
2. CCTV covered the foyer and the lifts, other communal areas were not covered. There were signs to say no smoking in communal areas. It asked the resident to let it know if he knew of anyone doing so.
3. It was difficult to monitor the smell of smoke coming through the bathroom vent as smoking was permitted in individual flats. It asked the resident to let it know if he was aware where the smoke was coming from.
4. It had previously sent letters to advise that tenants should dispose of rubbish in a responsible manner. It would carry out a reminder letter drop to all residents. This would include a reminder not to allow unauthorised visitors into the block. It advised the resident to contact the concierge or call the police if he experienced harassment of any kind.
5. The tenancy agreement states that no laminate flooring was permitted in flats. Any unauthorised alteration would be a tenancy breach.
The landlord and resident took part in a face to face meeting on 20 June 2022 to discuss the resident’s concerns. The landlord noted internally:
1. The resident wanted laminate flooring in his living room. It had advised him that this was not allowed in flats due to complaints of noise.
2. It had advised there was a no smoking policy in communal areas and there were signs to that affect. It would monitor this closely on CCTV. It would enquire into the smell of smoke coming through the bathroom vent.
3. The resident had been told that water meter permission requests were on hold. The resident had contacted the water supplier who had agreed to the work and had advised it had fitted water meters in the block before. The resident felt that if the landlord had given him this information in February 2022, he would have not been out of pocket paying for water.
4. The resident had artificial grass and bamboo on his balcony. It had advised him that balconies should be kept clear due to health and safety issues. It would knock on the doors above to see if anyone was aware of cigarette butts being thrown from the balconies.
On 21 June 2022 the resident advised the landlord as follows:
1. The smell of smoke through the vent was not acceptable.
2. The landlord sending a letter to tenants about not throwing cigarette butts from balconies was not a resolution. He had spoken to a solicitor and this posed a health and safety risk. He would take legal action.
3. As other tenants had installed laminate floor without permission, he should be treated the same.
4. The water meter issue had been confusing and delayed. He was approximately £75 out of pocket due to this and requested to be compensated.
On 6 July 2022 the landlord noted internally that it had spoken to a tenant above the resident and they had advised that their visitor had been smoking. They had apologised and said it would not happen again. It noted internally on 25 July 2022 that the flats were fed with water from 2 separate sources (the mains and a tank). A meter would only pick up the mains element and not the tank so the resident would not be metered correctly. It noted that the water supplier should be consulted. It noted that it would inspect the roof fans to see if they were extracting efficiency. The landlord contacted the water supplier on 26 July 2022 in respect of there being 2 water supplies and the possibility that its customers would not be metered correctly for their water usage.
That same day (26 July 2022) the resident submitted a claim to the landlord’s insurer for compensation in respect of his higher water costs. He stated this amounted to £153.39. The landlord acknowledged this the same day and advised that its insurance team would make a decision as to its liability.
On 2 August 2022 the landlord noted internally that the water supplier had agreed to install a water meter for the resident. The resident felt this could have been resolved earlier and could have saved him money.
On 14 August 2022 the resident submitted a complaint and stated as follows:
1. The landlord had ignored some of his emails and had been “abrupt and rude”.
2. He should not have to wait for a decision on compensation when the additional cost to him was due to the landlord’s fault in installing a water meter.
3. He should not have to tolerate the smell of smoke. The landlord had not advised him when he would hear further about this.
4. The landlord was treating him differently in respect of laminate flooring.
5. There were still cigarette ends and rubbish being thrown onto his balcony. He requested the landlord take further action.
6. Nothing had been done about the entrance door, unwanted items being left in the lobby or smoking in communal areas.
On 19 August 2022 the landlord advised that it had forwarded the complaint to its complaints team. The resident chased up a response and on 6 September 2022 the landlord committed to chase up the response. It advised the resident on 12 September 2022 that it could not address the complaint until the ongoing insurance claim had been determined. The resident advised on 27 September 2022 that he felt he was being ignored.
On 4 October 2022 the landlord advised that the complaint had been logged at stage 1 and it would respond by 17 October 2022. The resident stated that this was “extremely disappointing and frustrating” and that he was also still waiting in respect of an outcome for his compensation claim.
On 19 October 2022 the landlord responded at stage 1 and stated as follows:
1. It apologised for any distress and frustration caused and that the service received was not what the resident had expected.
2. The resident had submitted a request to have a water meter in February 2022. It had advised him that such permissions requests were on hold, as the whole process was under review. It apologised for any inconvenience that the associated delay in its response had caused. The resident had contacted the water supplier and had had a water meter fitted without its written permission. It had however given him verbal and email permission to do so in April 2022. It had outlined its concerns that due to the nature of the block the billing may not be accurate. It would notify him of the outcome of his compensation claim in due course. It apologised if the resident felt it had not been helpful when he contacted its Customer Resolution Team.
3. It had investigated the smell of smoke from the vent and there were not any faults with the ventilation. Due to the flats being within a high-rise block, it was common for smells to emanate from the bathroom vent and it was unable to stop tenants smoking within their own home.
4. It reiterated that it did not give permission for laminate flooring to be installed and this was outlined in the tenancy agreement under clause 67. If it was to receive a complaint regarding noise from flooring, this would be investigated.
5. It had followed up on the resident’s concerns of cigarette waste and rubbish being thrown out of windows and had carried out a door knock to address these concerns. A letter was also hand delivered to residents in July 2022 to address items on balconies and the risk these may pose in case of a fire. It had identified one address who had been spoken to about throwing cigarette ends out of their windows. It would continue to monitor this to identify the perpetrators and take action to prevent this by visiting the block more frequently and would speak to residents on a weekly basis. This element of complaint was upheld.
6. It had reported concerns about the front communal door to its repairs team and this had been repaired. It had identified individuals who had caused deliberate damage to the doors and action had been taken to address this. It would investigate the issue of the door blowing in the wind. It worked closely with the cleaners and concierge teams to try and identify and deal with those who fly tip and smoke in communal areas and action was taken accordingly. It checked daily for items left in communal areas and thanked the resident for bringing this to its attention. It concluded that this aspect was upheld.
7. It had investigated the resident’s concerns about the Tenancy Officer not being proactive. It had seen that they had responded via email many times to address the concerns and to meet face-to-face. Following the meeting they immediately followed up the points that were discussed via email.
On 5 November 2022 the resident escalated his complaint and stated as follows:
1. The complaint response was “disappointing and insulting” and placed some of the blame on him.
2. He had not been advised until April 2022 that permissions for water meters had been on hold. He had had lengthy discussions with the water supplier and the landlord’s concerns were not accurate as 2 meters had been fitted to monitor all of his water usage. His compensation request had been refused which he had challenged.
3. He should not have to smell smoke. This was unacceptable and could impact his health. He did not accept that nothing could be done. There had been a “huge delay” in the landlord responding to this.
4. He “demanded” that all flats be inspected for laminate flooring and action taken against tenants who did not follow the tenancy agreement.
5. He had not been advised that a tenant had been identified who had thrown cigarette butts. He suggested this was a lie and made to look like the landlord was doing something when they were not.
6. The entrance door was not effective in extreme weather and this had not been addressed. He stated he had suffered a minor injury to his wrist trying to stop the door “flying” out of his hand in strong wind. Despite being checked daily the entrance area remained an area where items were fly tipped.
7. The landlord had not responded to emails and responses were “clearly scripted”.
The landlord acknowledged the complaint at stage 2 on 15 November 2022 and advised it would respond by 12 December 2022. The landlord provided that stage 2 response on 9 December 2022 and stated as follows:
1. Its permission process in respect of the water meter stated that a resident should receive a decision regarding a request within 28 days. In this case, it had failed to meet this timeframe and it apologised for this. It upheld this aspect and offered £50 as a goodwill gesture for the inconvenience caused.
2. The resident had advised that he had 2 water meters fitted. It had not been aware of this at the time it had advised him about its concerns in respect of the water meter. Had it been aware, it would have given differing advice.
3. There was no fault with its ventilation system and it was unable to prevent residents from smoking in their own homes.
4. It had advised the resident (it is not clear when) that it would not inspect all properties for the possibility of laminate flooring. Action would only be taken against tenants if the presence of laminate flooring was causing a noise nuisance. It would not be just or proportionate to visit every property and take enforcement action where there was no evidence of associated nuisance.
5. It had taken steps following the resident’s reports of cigarette waste and rubbish being thrown out of windows as follows:
  1. It had carried out a door knock in the block to discuss the issues raised.
  2. It had written to all tenants in the block to remind them that such behaviour was unacceptable.
  3. It had identified an address where the occupant had been throwing rubbish out of the window. The tenant had been spoken to and advised that the behaviour was unacceptable.
  4. There was ongoing monitoring by its Tenancy Officer, supported by the Concierge Service.
6. It apologised that it had not informed the resident in a more timely manner of its identification of a tenant throwing rubbish.
7. It had rectified the damage to the front door reported in the original complaint. It acknowledged that the resident had reported the door being a possible risk in the wind. It had arranged for a contractor to attend and assess the front door to remedy this.
8. It had raised the issue of fly tipping with its Neighbourhood Services Manager and had asked that more vigilant patrols be made to ensure that this stops. This aspect was upheld due to the continuing issue.
9. It apologised that the resident had had to chase the Tenancy Officer for responses to queries raised. It had reminded the staff member that timely responses were an important element of good customer service. It upheld this aspect of complaint.
On 19 December 2022 the resident advised the landlord that he was unhappy with the amount of compensation offered. He advised that he would accept the payment offered whilst pursuing the matter with this Service. He provided his bank details to the landlord.
On 1 May 2023 the resident referred his compliant to this Service and stated as follows:
1. The landlord had unnecessarily delayed granting him permission to install a water meter by 3 months. This resulted in him having “hugely overpaid” for water which he believed to be approximately £132. The landlord had upheld this but had not paid enough compensation.
2. There was poor ventilation which was why he could smell smoke. The landlord should review this given the potential health issue or adjust his rent.
3. The landlord had discriminated against him and treated him differently to other tenants by its refusal to allow him to install laminate flooring.
4. He had had to progress the matter of cigarette rubbish to the fire safety team as the landlord “didn’t’ really help”.
5. There was an issue with parking in the emergency vehicles only area in the car park.
6. The communal door remained an issue.
7. The landlord had been unprofessional and had failed to respond to a couple of emails which had prolonged the complaint.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

In accordance with paragraph 42 (j) the Housing Ombudsman may not consider complaints which fall properly within the jurisdiction of another Ombudsman, regulator or complaint-handling body. As such this Service cannot draw conclusions on the action or lack of actions of an insurer and complaints concerning insurance claims are not within the Ombudsman jurisdiction. This is because the insurance company is a separate organisation from the landlord and the landlord is not responsible for the insurer’s actions. As such the resident’s concerns about the insurer not awarding compensation in respect of the cost of his water will not be considered by this Service. The landlord’s handling of this matter and how it responded to the resident’s concerns through its internal complaints process, including the compensation it paid for its acknowledged delay, has however been considered.
It is noted that the resident raised the issue of the impact of the issues on his health and stated he had sustained an injury from the communal front door. 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 is therefore unable to consider any personal injury aspects of the resident’s complaint. These matters are likely better suited to consideration by a court or via a personal injury claim. However, this Service will consider the landlord’s handling of the issues and any distress and inconvenience this may have caused. This Service would expect the landlord’s response to consider the resident’s reports on how the issues were impacting on his health as such issues reflect the detriment experienced as a result of potential failures by the landlord.
The resident stated that the landlord had treated him unfairly and discriminated against him in not permitting to lay laminate flooring. Though the Ombudsman is unable to reach legal findings, we can consider the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports and its response to his concerns around discrimination. The resident may wish to seek legal advice if he wants to pursue his concerns using equalities legislation.
The resident raised concerns about cars being parked in an ‘emergency vehicle only’ area of the car park, following the completion of the internal complaints procedure (which concluded on 9 December 2022). As this issue did not from part of the formal complaint to the landlord under consideration, it is not an aspect that this Service can investigate at this stage, as the landlord needs to be provided with the opportunity to investigate and respond to this concern. The resident may wish to contact the landlord to make a complaint via the landlord’s internal complaints procedure. Following such, the resident may then approach the Ombudsman if they remain dissatisfied.

Response to the resident’s request to have a water meter installed

The resident’s tenancy agreement sets out that residents need the landlord’s permission to modify water installations. Although not specifically stated, it is reasonable to assume that the installation of water meters would fall under this. The landlord’s permissions process states that permission should be requested using an online form. Although not seen by this Service, the landlord has acknowledged that the resident requested permission to have a water meter installed in February 2022 via a different communication method. There is no evidence that the landlord responded to this request at the time, although it did consider this initial request when acknowledging its failure during the internal complaints procedure. The resident subsequently submitted another request using the online request form on 25 April 2022. Landlords should be flexible in their methods of communications with residents and should accept requests via different communication channels to enable inclusivity. This would allow for consideration of resident’s differing communication preferences and communication requirements. A recommendation has been made for the landlord to review the requirement in its policy for an online form to be submitted.
It is clear from internal correspondence that the landlord sought to investigate the possibility of a water meter the day following the resident’s request (26 April 2022), however it identified issues with the internal building structure which may prevent this. This Service has not been provided with copies of the correspondence, however the landlord stated within its stage 2 response that it had advised the resident that such requests were on hold as it was reviewing its process. It is noted that in the stage 2 response, the landlord stated that it had given the resident permission to have a water meter installed in April 2022 (this has not been seen by this Service) and that this was installed by the water supplier around that same time.
The landlord’s permissions policy sets out that it should provide a decision within 28 working days for such a request. Despite not having been provided with the relevant correspondence in respect of this, it can reasonably be presumed from the correspondence seen that there was a period of around 2 months (February to April 2022) between the resident first seeking permission to the landlord providing it. This was a delay of around 1 month. The landlord’s stance in its stage 1 response, that although it had given him verbal and email permission, it had not given written confirmation was confusing given the written format of emails. The landlord acknowledged at stage 2 that it had not responded to this request in line with its permissions policy. It apologised for the inconvenience this had caused and offered £50 compensation. It is noted that the landlord’s insurer had considered the resident’s request for compensation in respect of this and this claim had been declined.
When a failure is identified, as in this case, the Ombudsman’s role is to consider whether the redress offered by the landlord put things right and resolved the resident’s complaint satisfactorily in the circumstances. In considering this, the Ombudsman takes into account whether the landlord’s offer of redress was in line with the Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles: Be Fair, Put Things Right and Learn from Outcomes as well as our own guidance on remedies.
It is noted that the resident believed that the delay in the landlord giving its permission to have the water meter installed led to him paying an unnecessarily high amount for water. This Service has not seen evidence supporting the resident’s calculations that this amounted to an overpayment for water of approximately £132. Although the resident’s concerns have been noted, a financial detriment caused by the acknowledged delay has not been evidenced. In addition, this request from the resident to be compensated has been considered by the landlord’s insurer.
While this Service cannot comment on the decision made by an insurer, it was appropriate for the landlord to have considered the resident’s claim against it in this manner. The landlord’s offer of £50 compensation (offered via its internal complaints process) was in line with the Housing Ombudsman remedies guidance for service failure, which was proportionate and appropriate to acknowledge the inconvenience caused to the resident by the delay in its decision making. As such there was reasonable redress in the landlord’s response to the resident’s request to have a water meter installed.

Laminate flooring

The resident’s tenancy agreement is clear that the resident would need to seek permission from the landlord to install laminate flooring. The resident first asked the landlord for permission to install laminate flooring within his complaint of 25 April 2022. The landlord responded on 27 April 2022 and advised that such flooring was not permitted under the tenancy agreement. This was not an accurate reflection of the terms of the tenancy agreement. The landlord went on to reiterate its advice that laminate flooring was not permitted during the face to face meeting of 20 June 2022 and within its complaint responses.
It is noted that the landlord advised that such flooring was not permitted due to noise transference in flats. Whilst this stance is understandable and reasonable, the tenancy agreement is clear that the resident has the option to seek permission to install such flooring. It is appreciated by this Service that the landlord’s decision may be to decline such applications, however the landlord’s guidance should have reflected the basis of the tenancy agreement.
It is noted that the resident felt the landlord was treating him differently from other tenants in not permitting him to install such flooring. The landlord acknowledged that there could be some properties with laminate flooring. However, this Service is unaware of the other tenancy agreements and the circumstances of the installation of such flooring. The landlord appropriately explained to him that it only took action against tenants if such flooring was causing a noise nuisance. It also explained why it could not accommodate the resident’s request for it to inspect all of the properties and the circumstances under which it would take action against tenants if such flooring was found. This was reasonable as it is for the landlord to best consider how to utilise its resources, especially when a concern has not been substantiated by any noise complaint. Overall, in respect of this matter, there was service failure as the landlord provided incorrect advice in respect of the tenancy agreement. To acknowledge the frustration this caused to the resident, compensation of £50 has been ordered.

ASB

The landlord’s ASB policy is clear that conduct capable of causing housing-related nuisance or annoyance is classed as ASB. The resident raised his concern about cigarette ends and rubbish being thrown onto his balcony by other tenants on 25 April 2022. The landlord appropriately followed its ASB policy and referred the resident’s concerns to its Tenancy Officer for investigation. The landlord advised on 27 April 2022 that it had previously sent letters to tenants about rubbish, although it did not provide details of when this had been done. The landlord agreed with the resident’s concerns and advised that balconies (including the resident’s) should be kept clear for safety reasons. During the face to face meeting with the resident, on 20 June 2022, the landlord committed to speak to the tenants above the resident about this further, although it is not clear when this took place.
The dates of the landlord’s actions have not been provided to this Service, nor has this Service seen logs to evidence the landlord’s actions, however the landlord stated that it carried out the following steps in response to the resident’s concerns:
1. It carried out a door knock in the block to discuss the issues raised.
2. It wrote to all tenants in the block to remind them that such behaviour was unacceptable.
3. An address was identified where the occupant had thrown rubbish out of their window. The tenant was spoken to and advised that this behaviour was unacceptable.
4. There was ongoing monitoring of this situation by its Tenancy Officer, supported by the Concierge Service.
Although this Service has been unable to assess the timeliness of such actions, these were appropriate steps to address the resident’s concerns and try to reduce the incidence of such behaviour going forward. This demonstrated that the landlord had taken the resident’s concerns seriously. The landlord acknowledged that it should have informed the resident in a more timely manner of its identification of a tenant responsible for throwing rubbish. It appropriately apologised for this in its attempts to put the issue right. As such no maladministration has been identified in relation to this complaint as the landlord outlined the appropriate steps it had taken in response to the resident’s reports. It’s record keeping in relation of this aspect of this complaint has shown concerns however; this has been addressed separately below.

Communal front door

The resident raised his concerns about the communal door being a possible hazard on 25 April 2022. He stated the landlord had not tightened it as previously advised (this Service has not seen this earlier correspondence). The landlord responded appropriately and in line with its responsive repairs policy and arranged for the door to be tightened on 3 May 2022 (within 5 working days). The landlord’s repairs log in respect of this was not provided to this Service although it confirmed within its stage 1 and stage 2 responses that this repair had been carried out. It also advised that it had identified individuals who had caused deliberate damage to the doors and that action had been taken to address this.
The resident raised further concerns about the door in November 2022. The landlord advised at stage 2 (9 December 2022) that the original damage complained about had been rectified. It acknowledged that the resident had reported the door being a possible risk in the wind and advised it had arranged for a contractor to remedy this. The door being hazardous in the wind is a concern that the resident had raised in April 2022. Due to a lack of repair records, the only evidence seen by this Service that this was carried out at the time was the landlord’s complaint responses.
This Service has not seen any evidence that the landlord sought to follow up on any work that had been completed in May 2022 to see if this had resolved the issue. This is something which should have been checked, particularly as the resident had stated that the door blowing in the wind had injured his hand. The landlord stated that it completed some works, however it could not demonstrate that it had fully completed repairs to resolve the issue. As such there was service failure. To acknowledge the frustration caused to the resident, compensation of £50 has been ordered. An order has also been included for the landlord to confirm what works, if any, have been done to address the resident’s concerns from a health and safety perspective.

Cigarette smell

The resident brought this concern to the landlord’s attention on 25 April 2022. The landlord advised within a reasonable timeframe, on 27 April 2022, that tenants were permitted to smoke within their own properties. Although the tenancy agreement doesn’t specifically cover this issue, it does state that tenants must not smoke when operatives are in the property. This would suggest that smoking at other times within individual properties is permitted.
It was appropriate for the landlord to ask the resident if he could provide any further details of where the smell was coming from to enable it to investigate further. There is no evidence that the landlord took any further action in respect of this until it discussed the issue with the resident on 20 June 2022 and committed to look into this further. The landlord noted internally on 6 July 2022 that it had spoken to a tenant above who had apologised that their visitor had been smoking. It further noted internally on 25 July 2022 that it would inspect the roof fans to see if they were extracting efficiently. This is something which could have been investigated at an earlier stage by the landlord. This Service has not seen a record of the roof fans having been inspected however the landlord did state within its stage 1 response that it had investigated and there were no faults with the ventilation system.
Whilst it is appreciated that being able to smell cigarette smoke was distressing for the resident, the landlord responded appropriately to the resident’s concerns. It demonstrated a holistic approach in speaking to the tenant above and also stated that it had investigated the ventilation of the block, thereby considering both the impact of other tenants behaviour and the building itself on the cause of the issue. There was therefore no maladministration in the landlord’s response. It is noted that this ventilation survey was not provided to this Service. A recommendation has therefore been made for the landlord to share a copy of this report or the findings of its contractor with the resident and this Service.

Staff conduct

The resident raised his concern that some of his emails had been ignored and staff had been “abrupt and rude” within his complaint from 14 August 2022. The landlord took his concerns on board and investigated the email correspondence between the resident and its Tenancy Officer. It advised at stage 1 that it had found that the staff member had been responsive to the resident’s concerns and had met with him face-to-face. This meeting had been appropriately followed up with an email summary of what was discussed.
At stage 2 the landlord acknowledged that the resident had had to chase the Tenancy Officer for responses to queries raised. The correspondence in question is not clear nor it is clear when these failures occurred. The landlord however appropriately apologised for this and advised that it had reminded the staff member of the need to provide timely responses. This was appropriate and demonstrated that it had taken the resident’s concerns seriously and had taken action to prevent this failure happening again. As such there was no maladministration in the landlord’s response.

Knowledge and information management

Good record keeping is vital in order to maintain a record of a landlord’s actions. It is also important in instilling confidence in the landlord and in its management systems and information. Landlords should therefore take steps to ensure that its record keeping practices are adequate, including retaining and having access to repair logs and that care is taken to provide all necessary documentation requested by the Ombudsman for its investigations.
It is evident throughout this case that the landlord failed to keep accurate records of inspections and works carried out at the property. This meant that its assurances that inspections or works having been carried out, were unsubstantiated by evidence.
The Housing Ombudsman’s May 2023 Spotlight Report on knowledge and information management refers specifically to these types of incidences and the landlord is encouraged to consider the impact its knowledge and information management has on the quality of its housing services.
There were some identified failures in how the landlord responded to the resident’s queries as identified above. However it is clear that the majority of these failures are due to the landlord’s failure to keep accurate records of works carried out and the dates of such works. This prevented the landlord from evidencing what actions it had taken and when it had done so to this Service. It has also contributed to delays in matters being resolved. In addition, the landlord’s assurances of actions it had carried out were not substantiated by records of such works or inspections.
The landlord failed to provide email correspondence between it and the resident in respect of the water meter enquiries. This included the resident’s initial request and the landlord’s permission for this to go ahead. In addition, this Service has not seen a record of the roof fans having been inspected, despite the landlord stating within its stage 1 response that it had investigated the ventilation system. These are records which the landlord should have had access to in order to evidence the action it had taken.
The landlord’s lack of understanding or checking of the information contained within the resident’s tenancy agreement led to the information it provided to the resident being incorrect. The landlord should ensure that such information is accurate and reflective of the tenancy agreement when advising residents to avoid confusion and frustration.
The landlord failed to provide the details of the actions it had taken in respect of the behaviour of tenants throwing rubbish onto the resident’s balcony nor did it provide logs to evidence the actions it had taken in respect of this. This was not appropriate as it should have been able to substantiate its assurances.
It did not provide the resident’s initial report in respect of his concern about the communal front door, to this Service. Nor did it provide evidence of the works it had carried out to the communal front door or the dates of these. In addition, this Service was not provided with evidence that the landlord sought to follow up on any work that had been completed in May 2022 to see if this had resolved the issue with the door blowing in the wind. This was not appropriate given the health and safety concern the resident had raised.
In summary, the landlord did not demonstrate sufficient knowledge information management in order to keep a robust record of the works and inspections or the associated dates when they were carried out. Consequently this service finds maladministration in the landlord’s knowledge and information management. An improvement in the landlord’s record-keeping would result in significant benefits for both it and its residents. It would enable accurate information to be shared across teams and with residents which would improve the landlord’s responses in being able to evidence actions it had taken. It would also help with investigations by this Service in improving our understanding of the situation at the time. A recommendation as been made for the landlord to review and improve its knowledge and information management.

Complaint handing

The resident submitted a complaint on 25 April 2022. The landlord responded to his concerns 2 days later, on 27 April 2022, although it did not do so as a stage 1 response. The response lacked escalation details and did not advise whether the complaint was upheld or not. Following this the landlord arranged a face to face meeting with the resident in June 2022. Although this was appropriate as a way to try to understand his concerns, it was not clear if his concerns had been considered under its complaints procedure at that stage.
As issues remained outstanding, the resident submitted a further complaint on 14 August 2022, which the landlord acknowledged on 19 August 2022. It however did not respond and the resident had to chase a response. The landlord then advised (on 12 September 2022) that it could not address the complaint until the ongoing insurance claim for compensation had been determined. This is something the landlord should have informed the resident of at an earlier stage. It is noted however that the insurance claim was only in respect of the water cost and not the other aspects of complaint. It was therefore unreasonable to delay responding to the whole complaint on this basis. This led to unnecessary frustration for the resident and the feeling that he was being ignored. Despite the insurance claim not having been determined, the landlord subsequently advised the resident on 4 October 2022 that it would respond at stage 1 by 17 October 2022. This was confusing and contradictory to the advice it had given earlier in respect of the insurance claim.
The landlord provided the stage 1 response on 19 October 2022. This was 46 days after the resident had submitted his complaint (in August 2022) and around 6 months after he initially made his complaint in April 2022. This delay was significantly outside of the 10 working day timeframe. The stage 2 response was provided 24 working days after the escalation request. The landlord offered no apology or redress in respect of its delays in responding to the complaint. This was not reasonable and the complaint handling failures identified amount to service failure. It is clear from the correspondence in this case that the resident spent time chasing the landlord in respect of his concerns and responses to his complaint however the landlord failed to acknowledge this and offer redress. To acknowledge the time, trouble and frustration caused to the residents, compensation of £100 has been ordered. This is in line with the Housing Ombudsman remedies guidance for maladministration where a resident has been caused frustration due to failures of the landlord.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 53b of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was reasonable redress in respect of the landlord’s response to the resident’s request to have a water meter installed.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure in respect of the landlord’s response to the resident’s request to install laminate flooring.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration in respect of the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of ASB.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure in respect of the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns in respect of the communal front door.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration in respect of the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about the smell of cigarettes.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration in respect of the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about staff conduct.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s knowledge and information management.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Reasons

The landlord’s offer of compensation was in line with the Housing Ombudsman remedies guidance for service failure, which was proportionate and appropriate to acknowledge the inconvenience caused to the resident by the delay in respect to his request for a water meter.
The landlord provided incorrect advice in respect of the tenancy agreement which caused frustration to the resident. It did not acknlwdge this failure.
The landlord acknowledged that it should have informed the resident in a more timely manner of its identification of a tenant responsible for throwing rubbish. It appropriately apologised for this.
The landlord did not provide evidence that it had followed up on any work that had been completed in May 2022 in respect of the communal door to see if this had resolved the issue. The landlord stated that it completed some works, however it could not demonstrate that it had fully completed repairs to resolve the issue.
The landlord responded appropriately to the resident’s concerns about the cigarette smell. It demonstrated a holistic approach in speaking to the tenant above and also stated that it had investigated the ventilation of the block, thereby considering both the impact of other tenants behaviour and the building itself on the cause of the issue.
The landlord appropriately apologised for issues identified with staff conduct and it took action to remind the staff member of the need to provide timely responses.
The landlord did not demonstrate sufficient knowledge information management in order to keep a robust record of the works and inspections or the associated dates when they were carried out.
The landlord did not respond to the resident’s initial complaint in line with its complaints procedure. The resident had to submit another compliant and following this second submission, the landlord significantly delayed providing its stage 1 response. It failed to acknowledge its failings and did not offer redress for the impact its complaint handling had on the resident.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

The landlord is ordered to take the following action within 4 weeks of this report and provide evidence of compliance to this Service:
1. Pay a total of £200 compensation to the resident made up as follows:
  1. £50 to acknowledge the frustration caused to the resident by the landlord’s failure in respect of the landlord’s response to the resident’s request to install laminate flooring.
  2. £50 to acknowledge the frustration caused to the resident by the landlord’s failure in respect of the landlord’s response to the communal front door issue.
  3. £100 to acknowledge the impact of the complaint handling failures on the resident.
2. The above compensation is in addition to any compensation paid to the resident as part of the landlord’s complaints process. Compensation ordered by the Ombudsman is to be paid direct to the resident.
3. Confirm to the resident and this Service what action has been taken to stop the communal front door blowing in the wind.

Recommendations

It is recommended that the landlord review its permissions policy to ensure its method of resident’s submitting permission requests is accessible to residents with differing communication requirements.
It is recommended that the landlord provide a copy of the ventilation survey or the findings of its contractor with the resident and this Service.
It is recommended that the landlord review its record keeping processes to ensure it has process in place to enable accurate records of works carried out and dates of such works to be recorded.