Applications are open to join the next Housing Ombudsman Resident Panel – find out more Housing Ombudsman Resident Panel.

Chesterfield Borough Council (202307997)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202307997

Chesterfield Borough Council

20 September 2024


Our approach

The Housing Ombudsman’s approach to investigating and determining complaints is to decide what is fair in all the circumstances of the case. This is set out in the Housing Act 1996 and the Housing Ombudsman Scheme (the Scheme). The Ombudsman considers the evidence and looks to see if there has been any ‘maladministration’, for example whether the landlord has failed to keep to the law, followed proper procedure, followed good practice or behaved in a reasonable and competent manner.

Both the resident and the landlord have submitted information to the Ombudsman, and this has been carefully considered. Their accounts of what has happened are summarised below. This report is not an exhaustive description of all the events that have occurred in relation to this case, but an outline of the key issues as a background to the investigation’s findings.

The complaint

  1. The complaint is about:  
    1. the landlord’s exclusion of the resident’s property from a roof replacement programme,
    2. the landlord’s handling of repairs to the property’s external footpaths.
  2. The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

  1. The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord since 2009. In 2020 she moved to her current property via mutual exchange. The property is a semi-detached house. The landlord is a local authority.
  2. The repair records show the resident raised a repair on 29 July 2022 for 2 footpaths at the front of her property. One path runs from the front door to the street pavement and the other path runs under the property’s front window. The repairs log does not show a completion date for these repairs and the resident has said the works were not completed. The repair log shows on 13 September 2022 a repair was raised to ‘renew and repair facia boards’ on the exterior of the property. No completion date on the repair log is shown for this repair.
  3. The resident said the landlord rolled out a roof replacement scheme in her area prior to 2023. The resident said she rang the landlord on 28 March 2023 to find out if her property would have its roof replaced. She said the landlord did not call her back and it made no contact regarding her roof being replaced under its scheme.

 

  1. On 16 April 2023 the resident complained to the landlord. She was unhappy it had not responded to her enquiry about her property’s roof replacement. She also said the repairs to her path were outstanding. The resident said her facia boards were unable to be repaired until a decision was made on her roof replacement. The resident said the landlord had attended on 2 occasions to repair her front garden paths. However, she said the landlord was unable to complete these repairs at the appointments due to the amount of work required.
  2. The landlord responded to the resident at stage 1 of its internal complaints process on 11 May 2023. It said it had her home listed as a ‘right to buy’ (RTB) property. RTB is a right under a resident’s tenancy agreement to buy their property from the landlord. The landlord said a RTB marker on the resident’s account meant there was either an active application for the resident to buy their property or it had been sold by the landlord. It said this was the reason it had not contacted the resident regarding replacement of her property’s roof.
  3. The landlord said it could not add the resident’s roof to the programme as it was already ‘oversubscribed’. It said it would contact her when it was able to do the work. The landlord said it had raised a further inspection for the paths at her property. It apologised to the resident that ‘she had felt’ there was a lack of communication. The landlord did not uphold her complaint and did not offer compensation.
  4. The repair log shows on 27 April 2023 the landlord raised a new job to repair the footpaths at the resident’s property. The resident said the works were not completed at this point.
  5. On 15 May 2023 the resident asked the landlord to escalate her complaint. The resident said the landlord’s ‘communication and work ethic’ required improvement. She asked the landlord why it had not completed checks to see if she had bought the property. The resident also said she was unhappy the repairs to her front garden paths were not completed.
  6. The landlord replied to the resident at stage 2 of its internal complaints process on 2 June 2023. It said its records show the resident’s property was due for a roof renewal in 4 years. The landlord said it had asked the relevant team to consider renewing the resident’s roof ‘much sooner’. The landlord said an inspection for the repairs to the garden paths had taken place and an order of work had been raised. It said due to a backlog of external work it ‘may be a while’ before it could carry out the roof renewal.
  7. On 6 July 2023 the resident told the Ombudsman she would like her complaint to be investigated. The resident said she had not asked or applied for the RTB her current or previous property from the landlord.
  8. On 13 March 2024 the landlord told this Service that it maintains footpaths to the front and rear doors of its properties only. It said other footpaths, within the garden area, are the resident’s responsibility.
  9. Evidence provided shows the resident’s roof had a ‘current notional life of 2027’. This means the landlord did not expect to replace the roof before this date. There was no evidence that the resident’s roof needed repair. The resident told this Service in September 2024 the landlord had completed a new roof installation on her property. However, she stated both of the front path’s repairs were still outstanding.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s exclusion of the resident’s property from a roof replacement programme

  1. On 13 September 2022 the landlord’s records show a repair was raised to ‘renew and repair facia boards’ on the exterior of the resident’s property. The evidence provided to this Service does not show a completion date for this repair.
  2. The resident told this Service she rang the landlord on 28 March 2023 regarding her roof being replaced. She said other properties owned by the landlord in the area were having their roof replaced and she wanted to know if she was eligible. The resident said she was given a direct number for a member of staff who she called and left a voicemail with. She said she did not receive a call back from the landlord. This Service was unable to confirm from the records if the phone calls took place, but the landlord did not dispute this information.
  3. On 16 April 2023 the resident raised a complaint with the landlord. She said she had experienced a ‘lack of repair service and communication’. The resident was unhappy that the landlord had not explained to her why her roof was not being replaced. She said in her complaint the repairs to the facia boards at the property could not be completed until a decision was made on her roof.
  4. The landlord replied to the resident at stage 1 of its internal complaint process. It said she was not contacted about a new roof because the property had been marked on the system as RTB. The landlord’s repairs policy says when a ‘sale is going through’ it will not include that property in ‘most improvement schemes’.
  5. The resident has told this Service that she had not applied for the RTB at her current or previous property with the landlord. We requested evidence from the landlord as to why the RTB marker was put on resident’s account. The landlord did not respond to this request. The resident said the landlord had marked the property incorrectly on its system.
  6. The absence of evidence from the landlord to explain why the property was marked as RTB, favours the resident’s account that this was an error. The failure to correctly account for the ownership status of the property on its systems was evidence of poor record keeping by the landlord. It was unfair that it was unable to account or explain why the RTB marker had been put on the resident’s account. The resident subsequently missed the opportunity to be included on the first round of improvements.
  7. Whilst the landlord apologised for its error, it said it would contact the resident when it was able to do the work due to the roof replacement programme being ‘oversubscribed’. The complaint was not upheld, and compensation was not offered to the resident.
  8. The resident escalated her complaint on 15 May 2023. She said the work ethic and communication of the landlord required improvement. The resident asked the landlord why it did not complete more checks to see if she was eligible for a new roof.
  9. On 2 June 2023 the landlord replied to the resident at stage 2 of its internal complaints process. It said it understood the resident was unhappy with the lack of communication and failure to check her eligibility for a new roof. The landlord said that although the resident’s roof was due for renewal in 4 years, it had asked the relevant team to ‘consider’ completing it sooner. The Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code 2022 point 6.1 states that where something has gone wrong a landlord should acknowledge this. The Code says when responding to a complaint the landlord should set out actions it has already taken, or intends to take, to put things right. It was a reasonable response by the landlord to say it was considering completing the resident’s roof sooner.
  10. A landlord should have systems in place to maintain accurate records of RTB applications, repair reports and communications. Good record keeping is vital to evidence the action a landlord has taken and to inform future decision making. Failure to keep adequate records indicates that the landlord’s processes are not operating effectively. The landlord’s staff should be aware of its record management policy and procedures and adhere to these. 
  11. The resident’s roof was not in disrepair and no disadvantage was caused to the resident by not being amongst the first properties to be part of the roof replacement programme. However, the landlord failed to recognise that its incorrect records had led to disappointment and distress for the resident who thought she had been omitted from the programme in error. Furthermore, she perceived that the repairs to the soffits on the property had also been delayed. The landlord’s mismanagement of the records could have been avoided and it was unreasonable they did not provide appropriate redress for the resulting impact. The failure to recognise and communicate the error amounts to maladministration. An order for compensation for will be made for the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident.

The landlord’s handling of repairs to the property’s external footpaths

  1. The landlord’s repair log shows on 28 February 2022 a job raised to inspect the resident’s front paths, but this was cancelled. It is not clear from the landlord’s notes why the repairs were not completed. On 29 July 2022 a new repair was raised to ‘make good’ the 2 paths at the front of the property. No completion date was entered for the repair.
  2. The resident raised her complaint to the landlord on 14 April 2023. She said the landlord had attended twice but not completed the repairs to the front paths due to the size of the job. In its stage 1 response on 11 May 2023 the landlord said to the resident the repairs would require a new inspection. The landlord said the paths were ‘down to be repaired’ but no details of the work required had been recorded. It said it had raised an inspection for this work. The further inspections raised by the landlord were an inconvenience to the resident and likely to have undermined her confidence that the landlord would complete the repairs in a timely manner.
  3. The landlord’s policy says non-urgent repairs ‘will be carried out within 30 days’. The resident told this Service at the time of this assessment that she was still waiting for the repairs to be completed on her front paths. As of September 2024, this is a significant delay of around 21 months from the landlord’s target service levels.
  4. On 13 March 2024 the landlord told this Service that in accordance with its repairs policy, it would only repair paths that connect the front or back door to the street pavement. The landlord stated its policy was that other garden paths are the resident’s responsibility to maintain. The resident told this Service she was not aware of this. She said the landlord had attended the repairs previously and she thought the path underneath her front window was the landlord’s responsibility.
  5. When considering the wider circumstances to the resident’s complaint there is no evidence that she has any vulnerabilities that impact her use of the paths. There is also no evidence that a relevant professional has said that the paths are unsafe.
  6. The landlord had previously attended the repairs to the garden path beneath the resident’s front window. It is reasonable to conclude that because of that the resident had expected the landlord would complete these repairs in the future. However, the policy says this is the resident’s responsibility. No evidence has been provided by the landlord to show has taken steps to explain this error to the resident.
  7. In summary, for the path connecting the front door to the street pavement, the landlord failed to repair it in a timely manner. The significant delay caused upset and distress to the resident. The landlord failed to explain its position to the resident in a reasonable timeframe regarding the path beneath the property’s front window. The lack of communication by the landlord has led to the resident expecting the repairs will be conducted. However, the landlord has no obligation to do so.
  8. The landlord has acted unreasonably in respect to its delay to repair the footpath for which it has responsibility. Also, in its lack of communication regarding the footpath for which it does not have responsibility. These failings and the resulting distress and inconvenience upon the resident amount to maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the repairs to the resident’s footpath. The landlord is ordered to compensate the resident for the distress and inconvenience caused by these failures.

The landlord’s complaint handling

  1. The resident complained to the landlord on 16 April 2023. The landlord sent its stage 1 reply to her on 11 May 2023, around 16 working days later. The landlord’s complaints policy says it will ‘aim to resolve’ a complaint within 10 working days from the complaint acknowledgement. It did not provide evidence to this Service of a complaint acknowledgement to the resident following her initial complaint. This coupled with the short delay to her stage 1 complaint will have caused inconvenience to the resident.
  2. The resident escalated her complaint on 15 May 2023. She asked the landlord why it had not completed checks to see if she was eligible for a new roof. The landlord responded at stage 2 of its internal complaints process on 2 June 2023. In its reply it failed to answer her question. The landlord did not explain why the property had been recorded as RTB or why it did not complete cross checks. It would have been reasonable for the landlord to check if there was evidence of a wider issue.
  3. When the resident escalated her complaint, she asked the landlord for its health and safety policy as she did not think the path was at an acceptable standard. In the landlord’s reply at stage 2 of its internal complaints process, it failed to respond directly to the resident’s concerns regarding the safety of her front garden paths.
  4. The Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code 2022 point 5.6 says ‘landlords must address all points raised in the complaint definition and provide clear reasons for any decisions’. This will have caused distress and inconvenience for the resident.
  5. In its complaint handling the landlord failed to assess and acknowledge the delays the resident had experienced. The time given for the repairs were not specific and no offer of redress was made to the resident. In conjunction with the failures to address all the relevant points raised by the resident, the landlord’s complaint handling was unreasonable and amounts to maladministration. The landlord is ordered to compensate the resident for the inconvenience of caused by the complaint handling failure.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s exclusion of the resident’s property from its roof replacement programme.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s repairs to the external footpaths at her property.
  3. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in its complaint handling.

Orders

  1. Within 4 weeks of the date of the report the landlord should apologise in writing to the resident for the failings outlined above.
  2. Within 4 weeks of the date of this report the landlord should pay the resident £510 compensation. This comprises of:
    1. £200 for the distress and inconvenience of the handling of the resident’s inclusion on the roof replacement programme,
    2. £210 for the distress and inconvenience caused through the lack of repair to the garden path connecting the front door to the street pavement for 21 months, equivalent to £10 per month,
    3. £100 for the landlord’s complaint handling failure.
  3. Within 4 weeks the landlord will explain in writing to the resident its position on repairing the path under her front window. It should also communicate its plan to finish the repairs to the path from the front door to the street pavement. The landlord will provide a copy of any relevant H&S policy that applies to paving. It will explain to the resident how the finished repair complies with that policy or meets health and safety requirements.
  4. The landlord should reply to this Service with evidence of compliance with the above orders within 4 weeks.