North Tyneside Council (202300165)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202300165

North Tyneside Council

25 October 2024

Our approach

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

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

The complaint

The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of:
1. The resident’s reports of outstanding repairs in the property.
2. The resident’s reports of a dangerous tree in her garden.
3. The resident’s complaint.

Background

The resident has a secure tenancy with the landlord, which is a local authority. Following a mutual exchange, she and her 3 children moved into the property in May 2022. Although the landlord says there are no vulnerabilities recorded for the household, the resident has told the Ombudsman that she suffers with post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) and other mental health issues. One of her children also has additional needs.
The resident says she raised multiple repairs issues with the landlord from May 2022 onwards. Her email of 22 June 2022 referred to repairs she had reported online but had not heard when these would be resolved. She noted a number of issues, including chipped and cracked electrical sockets and whether the previous tenant had safely disconnected their gas cooker.
The resident complained about outstanding repairs on 26 October 2022. Among the issues raised were damp in the kitchen and a blocked toilet. She also raised concerns about the housing officer’s conduct, including unannounced visits and poor communication. She said she had told the housing officer, “I have mental health issues and find things tough at the moment. I can’t deal with people showing up unannounced.”
In its stage 1 response of 15 November 2022, the landlord stated that:
1. The property condition standards for empty properties were not applicable to the resident because, as part of the mutual exchange, she agreed to take the property as it stood.
2. Pre-exchange repairs to windows and kitchen units were completed in May 2022 and the only other repair identified at the time was to the letterbox.
3. Following the exchange, if she was unhappy with the condition of the kitchen, she would not receive preferential treatment for its renewal ahead of other properties.
4. The housing officer was on leave when she emailed them about repairs in June 2022. In any case, she subsequently refused entry to her home for an inspection that had been arranged.
5. It would attend the property to assess what further repairs were required and if a damp survey was necessary.
6. She could ask to be dealt with by another housing officer, but this could not be guaranteed at all times.
7. While it acknowledged that the service provided had not met her expectations, its investigations concluded that it had acted in line with its procedure.
The resident replied on 17 November 2022, saying she was not happy with the stage 1 response. While some repairs had now been booked in, several others were still outstanding and she felt these had been overlooked at the pre-exchange inspection. She said the suggestion that she expected a brand new kitchen or “preferential treatment” was “rude and unprofessional.” She noted that a contractor had turned up unannounced on 21 June 2022 but, due to her anxiety and PTSD, she needed someone in the house with her if people, especially male, were attending. Her support worker had also emailed the housing officer to further explain this. She reiterated her dissatisfaction with the housing officer’s handling of her communications and asked if it was possible for a different, named female officer to deal with her going forward.
The stage 2 letter, dated 19 January 2023, apologised for the landlord’s delay in responding and for incorrect information in its stage 1 response. It said:
1. It would arrange for contractors to carry out the various repairs and would reinforce to all staff that, other than emergency work, any internal works or inspections should be via an arranged appointment.
2. It could only evidence 1 repair report relating to the toilet blocking daily since the resident had moved in.
3. Floor coverings were her responsibility, irrespective of the mutual exchange, but it would arrange an inspection of the cracked floor tiles in the bathroom to see if it could assist.
4. It was sorry she found the comments about updating her kitchen rude and unprofessional, and it would arrange an inspection of these.
5. It would feed back her comments about the housing officer to the relevant neighbourhood manager.
6. It had partially upheld her complaint. If dissatisfied with this response, she could request a stage 3 review of her complaint.
The resident wrote back on 23 March 2023, noting that it had been 2 months since the landlord’s last email communication. She was unhappy that many of the repairs were still outstanding and she requested an update. She said the toilet had not been fixed despite attendances by 2 contractors and the daily blockage was extremely difficult for her child with additional needs. Her concerns about a partially fallen, dangerous tree and a broken fence in the garden – which were notified to the landlord on 23 January 2023 – had also not been addressed. She was concerned that the housing officer she had complained about had called her to request a photograph of the tree.
The resident contacted the Ombudsman as she remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s handling of matters. However, the complaint was referred back to the landlord on 30 August 2023 for its final stage 3 response, in line with its complaints policy.
The landlord issued its stage 3 response on 30 October 2023, stating that:
1. During a visit to the resident’s property on 19 September 2023, a housing neighbourhood manager and repairs team manager had identified various works, which she had confirmed on 29 September 2023 had been completed.
2. It had written to her on 19 September 2023 to confirm that its arborist team would attend before the end of December to fell the tree in her back garden.
3. Reasonable and appropriate actions had been taken to investigate and address her concerns and complete responses had been provided at stages 1 and 2. However, it accepted there was a delay in responding at stage 2 for which it had already apologised.
4. It received no further communication from her that she wished to escalate her complaint further until the Ombudsman’s notification.
5. In recognition that it had been an unpleasant experience for her, it offered her compensation of £150.
The resident asked the Ombudsman to investigate her complaint as she said several repairs were still outstanding, including the toilet and unstable garden fence, and she was not happy with the level of compensation offered.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

The Ombudsman’s jurisdiction extends only to the local authority’s function as a provider and manager of social housing. Therefore, the assessment of the complaint relating to the handling of the resident’s reports of a dangerous tree in the garden will be limited to the local authority’s housing function and in its capacity as the landlord. It will not extend to the actions of other local authority departments, such as environmental health, which fall under the remit of the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman (LGSCO).

The resident’s reports of outstanding repairs in the property

While it is correct that a mutual exchange means the resident accepts the property condition as it stands, the landlord remains responsible for repairs in line with the obligations set out in the tenancy agreement and its repairs policy. Specifically, its repairs handbook stated that repairs would be categorised as either emergency, urgent or routine and it would make every effort to complete all repairs within 45 working days. It also provided shorter (1- to 7-working-day) timescales for certain repairs under the statutory right to repair scheme.
The Ombudsman’s spotlight report on knowledge and information management, published in May 2023, highlights the importance of good record keeping practices. It is vital for the landlord to keep clear, accurate and easily accessible records to provide an audit trail of events. It should have appropriate systems in place to keep records of repairs and monitor the outcome of contractor appointments so that it can demonstrate its actions and interventions. This helps the Ombudsman to understand the landlord’s actions and decision-making at the time. If there is disputed evidence and no audit trail, we may not be able to determine that an action took place or that the landlord acted fairly and in line with its policies.
In this case, the landlord has not disputed the resident’s reference, in her email of 22 June 2022, to an earlier repair report she had submitted online. It has not provided the Ombudsman with evidence of the initial report or the steps it took to address these repairs. It did not clearly identify, assess or prioritise the works needed, which demonstrates its failure to properly and effectively manage the numerous repairs. Consequently, the repairs were not dealt with in a reasonable and timely manner.
For example, the resident’s report of chipped and cracked electrical sockets, first made on 22 June 2022, was not logged until 24 January 2023. It was raised as an urgent repair to be completed within 7 working days. The sockets were replaced on 8 February 2023, 13 working days later but over 7-and-a-half months after the initial report. The delay in completing this repair was excessive and unreasonable.
The issue of the toilet blocking daily was reported on 25 October 2022. This should have been prioritised and dealt with according to the statutory right to repair timeframe of 1 working day. However, it was not logged until 10 February 2023, 76 working days later, as a routine job to be completed in 30 working days. There is no evidence to show if a camera survey was carried out, as stated in the stage 2 response, but an inspector attended on 21 February 2023 and suggested replacing the toilet. The resident chased on 23 March 2023 and the work was completed on 13 April 2023, almost 6 months after the initial report. This was excessive against the timescale given in the repairs handbook. It also appears that the resident’s continued reports that the toilet blockages persist have not been addressed by the landlord, which is unacceptable.
Records show the severe impact the outstanding toilet repair had on the resident’s household. She repeatedly told the landlord how frustrating and problematic it was for her and her children to have a toilet that was not working properly, especially as she had a child with additional medical needs. It is clear that this issue had a significant impact on the resident’s day-to-day use and enjoyment of the property over an extended period of time. However, this does not appear to have been taken into account by the landlord. An empathetic response by the landlord and efforts to understand the impact would have improved the resident’s experience.
It took the landlord over 3 months, from the resident’s report of 25 October 2022, to request an inspection of the damp in the kitchen. The Ombudsman has not had sight of the inspection report following the visit on 7 February 2023, so it is unclear if a suitably-qualified surveyor was instructed to assess the property’s condition in this regard. In the circumstances, the Ombudsman cannot confirm that the landlord undertook sufficient investigations into the resident’s concerns about damp, as per its obligations under the Housing Health and Safety Rating System (HHSRS).
Despite multiple contractor attendances and the resident repeatedly chasing the landlord, a number of repairs were not completed until the end of September 2023 – for example, the replacement of kitchen units and repairs to various internal doors and frames. This amounted to a delay of 11 months from when they were reported on 25 October 2022, which was excessive against the 45-working-day timeframe in the repairs handbook and a significant failing on the landlord’s part.
The resident has told the Ombudsman that other repairs, such as those to the plaster in the dining room and a broken garden fence, are still outstanding. There is no evidence that the resident’s repeated reports of these repairs have been logged, assessed or completed by the landlord. Therefore, the Ombudsman cannot be satisfied that these repairs have been addressed appropriately.
It was inappropriate for the landlord to rely on the fact there had been a mutual exchange to suggest that some repairs would be rechargeable to the resident, as per its internal emails dated 28 to 31 October 2022. There is no evidence that it was clearly communicated to the resident which repairs would be chargeable, which would not, and why. In any case, there were clearly repairs that it ought reasonably to have dealt with, such as the reports of damp in the kitchen and the blocked toilet. Its failure to do so caused unnecessary delay in the overall resolution of the repairs.
To the landlord’s credit, it subsequently carried out a number of repairs, including some for which it was not responsible under the tenancy agreement and its repairs policy. This was an appropriate use of discretion in the circumstances. For example, it correctly pointed out to the resident that she was responsible for floor coverings but, nevertheless, it arranged to replace broken floor tiles in the bathroom.
The landlord’s multiple longstanding failings in the handling of the various repairs were compounded by its failure to accommodate the resident’s repeated requests for advance notice of contractor appointments due to her mental health. She brought the need for adjustments to the landlord’s attention as early as 22 June 2022 and reiterated this throughout, including as part of her complaint. She also made reference to her support worker in some communications, which ought to have alerted it to the fact that she had additional vulnerabilities. Despite this, the stage 1 response suggested that repairs could not be progressed because she refused to grant entry to her home for an inspection. This was unacceptable and inappropriate.
The landlord has told the Ombudsman there are no vulnerabilities in the household, demonstrating a failure to record this on its system. This omission prevented the landlord from considering any reasonable adjustments in line with the Equality Act 2010. For the resident, its failure to record the household’s disabilities and vulnerabilities has contributed to the overall delay in carrying out repairs. She feels that the landlord has not listened to her or taken into account her additional needs, and this has been the source of additional distress, frustration and inconvenience.
The landlord also informs the Ombudsman that it does not have a compensation policy and, instead, uses the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance to try to resolve complaints. With reference to the same, in addition to addressing any outstanding repairs, a fair and reasonable remedy should include compensation for the impact of its failings. The evidence shows that a significant amount of distress, frustration and inconvenience was caused to the resident and her children for a prolonged period of time. The number and nature of failings collectively had a severe detrimental impact on the household, which justifies a substantial compensation award.
In summary, the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of outstanding repairs in the property amounts to severe maladministration because:
1. There was a 7-and-a-half-month delay in replacing cracked and chipped electrical sockets, first reported on 22 June 2022.
2. It failed to prioritise the repair of the toilet, which was reported on 25 October 2022, and this has still not been fully resolved almost 2 years later.
3. It unreasonably delayed in carrying out various other repairs reported by the resident, with some repairs still outstanding.
4. It failed to properly and effectively manage the repairs, resulting in multiple ineffective contractor appointments that did not progress or resolve the repairs.
5. It inappropriately relied on the fact there had been a mutual exchange to suggest that some repairs would be rechargeable to the resident. It did not clearly communicate which repairs were chargeable, which were not, and why.
6. It failed to keep accurate records of repairs, contractor attendances and the works carried out to address all the repairs reported by the resident, which contributed to the delays.
7. It failed to accommodate the resident’s reasonable requests for advance notice of inspections and contractor appointments as an adjustment for her mental health issues.
8. It failed to record the household’s vulnerabilities on its system and, in turn, did not take these into account as part of its repair response.

The resident’s reports of a dangerous tree in her garden

On 23 January 2023, the local authority’s environmental health team forwarded to the landlord the resident’s report of a potentially unsafe, partially fallen tree affecting her back garden. It is noted that the tree belonged to a privately-owned property that adjoined the resident’s back garden, although it is unclear if this information was provided by the landlord or the environmental health team.
The resident chased the landlord for an update on 17 February 2023, stating that it had been over 3 weeks since a housing officer had contacted her to say something would be done with the tree in the back garden, but nothing had been done. The landlord, in turn, made enquiries of the environmental health and arborist teams. The arborist team responded to say the tree had been inspected but no works could be carried out on it because it was on privately-owned property.
There is no evidence that the landlord updated the resident, which was unsatisfactory. Her email of 23 March 2023 noted that her concerns about the dangerous tree in the garden had not been addressed: the fallen part of the tree had not been removed and the tree that was still standing had not been assessed to determine if it was safe. In a further email on 3 April 2023, she stated, “My young son can’t play in the garden… I am fed up and it’s affecting me mentally. As well as a risk to our safety if the tree is unsafe.” The landlord forwarded that email to the arborist team, which confirmed, on 3 May 2023, that it would remove the fallen part of the tree and fell the remaining tree in the winter.
Records demonstrate that the landlord inspected the tree and duly communicated with the environmental health and arborist teams about her concerns. Its actions were reasonable and timely, and the arborist team felled and removed the tree on 18 October 2023.
The Ombudsman recognises that the landlord was not responsible for maintaining the garden – this was the resident’s responsibility under the terms of the lease. Similarly, the environmental health and arborist teams were responsible for the removal and felling of the tree itself, so this is outside the local authority’s function as the landlord of the property. Nevertheless, the landlord exercised discretion in making enquiries of these departments and, ultimately, its interventions resulted in the job being prioritised.
Where the landlord’s service fell short, however, was in its communications with the resident. It did not provide her with a clear response on her concerns about the dangerous tree or explain whose responsibility it was to deal with this, namely the environmental health and/or arborist teams. The Ombudsman has also not been provided with a copy of a letter it says it sent to the resident on 19 September 2023, as referred to in its stage 3 response, to inform her that the tree would be felled before the end of December 2023. In all the circumstances, a finding of service failure is appropriate in respect of this complaint.

The resident’s complaint

The landlord dealt with the resident’s complaint under its 3-stage corporate complaints procedure, which was acceptable under the Ombudsman’s previous Complaint Handling Code applicable at the time. The Ombudsman has since introduced a statutory Code and monitors landlords’ compliance with this. In the absence of an updated complaint handling policy, the landlord has been referred to our team responsible for monitoring compliance with the Code.
The landlord issued its stage 1 response within 15 working days of the resident’s complaint of 26 October 2022. This was in line with the timeframe provided in its complaints policy.
The stage 2 response stated that an escalation request was received on 23 November 2022, but the landlord has not provided a copy of this to the Ombudsman. In any event, the resident’s email of 17 November 2022 made it clear that she did not accept the stage 1 response and it should have been treated as an escalation request. Accordingly, from this date, the stage 2 response was issued 43 working days later. This was beyond the 15-working-day timeframe provided in its complaints policy.
The landlord’s position, as per its final response, was that it had received no further communication from the resident to escalate her complaint further until the Ombudsman contacted it for its stage 3 response on 30 August 2023. However, she had emailed it on 23 March 2023 noting that, while some repairs had been carried out, others were still outstanding. Given that this email indicated the resident’s ongoing dissatisfaction with its handling of matters, the landlord ought reasonably to have considered whether this ought to be treated as a request for further escalation.
The stage 3 response was issued on 30 October 2023, 44 working days after the complaint was escalated by the Ombudsman on 30 August 2023. No timescale for a stage 3 response was provided in the landlord’s complaints policy, which is unreasonable. When taken against the fact that the resident continued to express dissatisfaction with its handling of repairs and the dangerous tree between February and April 2023, the time taken to provide the stage 3 response was excessive.
The stage 3 response offered £150 compensation as the landlord acknowledged that this had been an unpleasant experience for the resident. The resident has told the Ombudsman that she did not accept, nor did the landlord pay, the proposed compensation. It was not clear to which element of her complaint the compensation offer related. On the basis that the landlord found its handling of repairs to have been reasonable, the Ombudsman has treated the compensation as relating to its complaint handling, where it had accepted there was delay in providing its stage 2 response. The amount offered was a fair reflection of the distress and inconvenience caused by its complaint handling failures.
That being said, a finding of reasonable redress is not appropriate because the final response did not provide a fair, balanced assessment of the complaints. Specifically, the landlord failed to recognise any of its multiple failings in its handling of repairs in this case, which ought to have been reasonably apparent on a sufficiently thorough review of its repair response. Nor did it offer a reasonable remedy in respect of repairs to try to put things right or demonstrate that it had learned from its failings. This was not consistent with the Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles. In all the circumstances, it is appropriate to find service failure in respect of complaint handling.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was:
1. Severe maladministration in respect of the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of outstanding repairs in the property.
2. Service failure in respect of the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of a dangerous tree in her garden.
3. Service failure in respect of the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

Orders

The Ombudsman orders that, within 4 weeks of the date of this determination, the landlord must:
1. Apologise in writing to the resident for its failings in this case, in accordance with this Service’s apologies guidance.
2. Contact the resident in order to update its records to reflect the household’s vulnerabilities and any agreed adjustments.
3. Pay the resident compensation totalling £1,200, which comprises:
  1. £1,000 in recognition of the distress, frustration and inconvenience caused to her as a result of its severe maladministration in the handling of her reports of outstanding repairs in the property.
  2. £50 in recognition of the concern and inconvenience caused to her as a result of its service failure in the handling of her reports of a dangerous tree in her garden.
  3. £150 it offered the resident on 30 October 2023, if not already paid, for distress and inconvenience caused by its complaint handling failures.
  4. These sums should be paid directly to the resident and must not be offset against any arrears.
4. Arrange with the resident a mutually convenient appointment to carry out an inspection of her property to identify any outstanding repairs. A full itemised list of repairs and/or an explanation for any repairs not agreed by the landlord must be sent to the Ombudsman and the resident.
The Ombudsman orders that, within 12 weeks of the date of this determination, the landlord must:
1. Complete all/any repairs identified and agreed under paragraph 42.d above.
2. In accordance with paragraph 54.g of the Scheme, carry out a senior management review of its handling of repairs in this case in order to:
  1. Identify what went wrong, what it has learned from the resident’s experience, and what it would do differently.
  2. Identify improvements it can make to its processes and practices for monitoring outstanding repairs to ensure accurate record keeping, appropriate oversight and to avoid delays in its handling of repairs.
  3. Unless it can demonstrate it has done so within the last 12 months, self-assess against the recommendations made by the Ombudsman at pages 62 to 64 of the spotlight report on Attitudes, respect and rights – relationship of equals.
  4. Identify any staff training needs and/or changes to its procedures to ensure household vulnerabilities are accurately recorded and appropriate consideration is given to any reasonable adjustments.
  5. Present a report to its senior leadership team and the Ombudsman setting out its findings and proposed improvements.