Nottingham City Homes Limited (202315607)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202315607

Nottingham City Homes Limited

23 August 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. Antisocial behaviour (ASB) in the communal areas of the resident’s building.
2. Associated repairs to the communal front entrance doors and residents’ postboxes in the residents building.
3. Fire safety.
4. Damp and mould in the communal areas of the resident’s building.
5. Damp and mould in the resident’s home.
6. The associated complaint.

Jurisdiction

What we can and cannot consider is called the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. This is governed by the Housing Ombudsman Scheme (the Scheme). When a complaint is brought to the Ombudsman, we must consider all the circumstances of the case as there are sometimes reasons why a complaint will not be investigated.
Paragraph 42 (a) of the Scheme says that the Ombudsman may not consider complaints about matters that are made prior to having exhausted a member’s (landlord’s) complaints procedure, unless there is evidence of a complaint-handling failure and the Ombudsman is satisfied that the member has not acted within a reasonable timescale.
After careful consideration, the resident’s complaints about fire safety in the building, and damp and mould in the resident’s home are outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction, in accordance with paragraph 42 (a). This is because the resident did not raise these issues at stage 2 of the landlord’s complaints process, so they have not exhausted the landlord’s complaints procedure. The landlord should contact the resident to see if she would like it to consider these issues at stage 2 of its complaints process. The resident may be able to refer these issues to the Ombudsman as a separate complaint if she remains dissatisfied once she has received the landlord’s final response.

Background

The resident lives in a flat in a building with a communal entrance. The Ombudsman is aware that the landlord received reports of non-residents entering the building, damaging the front entrance door, and vandalising residents’ post-boxes since at least June 2022.
On 7 July 2023, the resident complained to the landlord. She said:
1. Non-resident youths were repeatedly breaking into her building. They were intimidating, wearing hoods and masks. They used drugs in the communal areas. They had damaged the front entrance door and post–boxes. She had reported her concerns to the police. The landlord had been aware of the issue for 2 years.
2. The landlord had repaired the communal front entrance door, but the youths continued to break it. She wanted the landlord to replace the door with a more secure door.
3. There was no CCTV in the building.
4. The fire escape in the building was permanently locked and this caused a fire risk.
5. She wanted to move to another property.
The landlord took a statement from a resident over the phone on 3 August 2023. It recorded that the youths entering the building had allegedly verbally threatened a resident and were allegedly carrying knives. As a result of the call, the landlord:
1. Said it would look into patrolling the area.
2. Enquired internally about the possibility of installing CCTV in the building.
3. Made a request for information from the police. The police responded the same day, listing related reports throughout 2023.
On 4 August 2023, the resident contacted the landlord to report that her mailbox had been vandalised, and that people were breaking in through communal windows, behaving antisocially, and using drugs.
The landlord logged an ASB (antisocial behaviour case) on 11 August 2023. There were 3 complainants listed on the case, including the resident. It recorded that the front entrance door was secure on this date and the police were doing regular patrols of the building.
The landlord wrote to residents of the building, asking them to attend a meeting to discuss the ASB issues in a community space. The meeting was arranged for 5 October 2023, but no residents attended.
The resident contacted the Ombudsman as the landlord had not responded to her complaint. We asked the landlord to respond to the resident at stage 1 of its complaints process. It did so on 24 October 2023. It upheld her complaint, saying:
1. During a call with the resident about her complaint, she had also expressed concerns about mould in her flat and the communal areas of the building.
2. It summarised its response to the ASB to date.
3. It would arrange for the front entrance door to be replaced. It accepted there had been a delay in this. It also agreed to install new post–boxes for residents of the building.
4. It had referred the resident’s concerns about mould in the communal areas to the repairs team. It did not have a timescale for the repair yet. It would contact residents of the block when it did.
5. It had visited the resident at home on 22 February 2023 to assess the damp and mould in her home and gave her advice.
6. The fire escape was locked temporarily as there was no clear pathway to exit the building through it. The staircase from the fire escape led to a path which blocked by weeds and rubbish. The local authority did not own the path. The building had been inspected by the fire department, and the landlord was working with them to ensure residents’ safety.
7. It acknowledged the delay in its complaint response. It said this was because it had passed the report to its ASB team, as the resident’s complaint related to ASB, which was managed through the ASB process.
The resident contacted the Ombudsman about escalating her complaint. She said:
1. The landlord had not fixed her post–box and the front entrance door was still broken. As a result, her post had been stolen. She believed residents of the block were at risk of harm.
2. She requested compensation from the landlord, saying its handling of her concerns had caused her distress, inconvenience, and financial loss.
We asked the landlord to respond to the resident at stage 2 of its complaints process. It did so on 11 December 2023, upholding her complaint. It said:
1. It continued to work with the police to resolve the ASB.
2. It had repaired the front entrance door at least 6 times in the past 6 months, leaving it operational on each occasion.
3. The landlord had an internal meeting about the ASB concerns on 15 November 2023.
4. It was ordering a new solid metal front entrance door from a specialist supplier and was waiting for an installation date.
5. It replaced the post–boxes on 16 March 2023, but they had been vandalised again. It would consider replacing them with higher specification post–boxes.
6. The communal areas of the building were redecorated in April 2023, but their condition had worsened since. It would inspect the roof of the building on 18 December 2023 and would redecorate the block in January.
The landlord replaced the front entrance door at the building on 29 February 2024. The landlord told the Ombudsman no further reports of ASB were received after the door was replaced. The resident told the Ombudsman the landlord replaced the letterboxes.
The resident told the Ombudsman that although the landlord completed the repairs, she remains dissatisfied by the overall time they took and the landlord’s communication during the repairs process.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s handling of the ASB

In its antisocial behaviour, domestic abuse and hate crime policy the landlord commits to taking timely and consistent action to tackle antisocial behaviour. The policy lists types of behaviour that the landlord considers to be antisocial, including vandalism, damage to property and misuse of communal areas.
When it was aware that several residents had reported the same concerns about ASB in the communal areas of the resident’s building, the landlord arranged a group meeting in a communal space. This was an appropriate action, which would have helped it to show residents it was taking their concerns seriously, and to gather evidence. The landlord gave residents adequate notice of the meeting. No residents attended the meeting, which was outside of the landlord’s control.
The landlord worked appropriately with partner agencies, including the police, and arranged additional patrols of the area. As a result, the police identified some of the perpetrators and took enforcement action, serving community protection notice warnings. However, the police made 2 suggestions that the landlord did not implement. The police suggested the landlord could:
1. Install permanent or temporary CCTV cameras in the building.
2. Explore whether it was possible to alter the downstairs windows so they only opened in event of fire. This would have aligned the downstairs windows with the upstairs windows.
The landlord should have considered these options, particularly given the persistent nature of the ASB and the possible risks reported by residents, who believed the perpetrators were carrying weapons. There is no evidence the landlord explored whether it would be possible to change the operational function of the windows. Although the landlord made initial enquiries about CCTV cameras, once the landlord confirmed it did not have a set budget for installing CCTV cameras, they do not appear to have been seriously considered. However, if the landlord had considered all the circumstances of the case, including the cost of repeated repairs needed due to vandalism, it may have found it had a business case to install CCTV cameras. The landlord could also have considered installing a dummy CCTV camera as a lower-cost option. In some circumstances dummy CCTV cameras can be an effective deterrent. If similar issues occur in the block in future, the landlord should consider installing CCTV cameras.
The Ombudsman’s spotlight report on knowledge and information management, available on our website, says that landlord’s records should show the full picture of what happened, when and why. The landlord’s record keeping around the handling of the ASB case did not always do this. For example:
1. The landlord says it will take an initial report from residents at the first point of contact. The landlord’s records indicate that it did take a statement from the resident, but it did not provide the Ombudsman with a copy.
2. Similarly, although it recorded that it had an internal meeting with other departments on 15 November 2023, it does not appear to have recorded the outcome of the meeting, or any actions agreed as a result.
3. The landlord recorded that there were 3 complainants in the ASB case, but in its records the landlord did not always differentiate between them, for example saying that it had received an email from “one of the residents” and that “some residents” had reported new incidents. The landlord should have clearly identified each resident so its records were clear.
The landlord should ensure that in future its records on ASB cases are complete and specific, and that all statements and agreed actions are recorded. This would be in line with the best practice outlined in the Ombudsman’s spotlight report on knowledge and information management.
The landlord did not always act in line with its antisocial behaviour, domestic abuse and hate crime policy. For example:
1. The landlord’s antisocial behaviour, domestic abuse and hate crime policy says the landlord will carry out an impact/risk assessment for all cases. In this case the landlord’s evidence suggests that it only carried out a risk assessment on 1 of the 3 complainants. There is no evidence the landlord did a risk assessment for the resident. This was inappropriate. The resident told the Ombudsman that the ASB had a significant impact on her daily life. If the landlord had done an impact assessment with the resident, it may have been able to signpost her to appropriate support services.
2. The landlord’s antisocial behaviour, domestic abuse and hate crime policy says the landlord will keep complainants informed of progress at least once a month. The landlord’s records do not show that it proactively contacted the resident monthly. Its failure to do this may have caused the resident uncertainty and worry.
3. There was a delay in the landlord logging an ASB case for the incidents. It logged the case on 17 August 2023. This was around 2 weeks after the resident had made a report to it about what she was experiencing, and over a month after she initially complained. This did not align with the landlord’s policy timescale, which says it will acknowledge a report of ASB within 1 day and take a statement and carry out a risk assessment within 7 working days for standard risk cases.
Cumulatively, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the ASB case. While the landlord could have done more to support the resident with the ASB, ultimately this may not have affected the outcome of the case until the communal front door was upgraded and secured. To put things right for the resident, the landlord is ordered to:
1. Apologise to the resident for the failures identified in this report and identify any learning it has taken from her case that will help it to improve its services going forward.
2. Pay her £200 in compensation for the additional distress and inconvenience its handling of the ASB case caused her. The Ombudsman’s remedies guidance, available on our website, says awards in this range are appropriate where there has been maladministration by the landlord and this has adversely affected the resident.

The landlord’s handling of the communal repairs

In its repairs and maintenance service standards, the landlord says it will aim to:
1. Respond to emergency repairs within 4 hours and no later than 24 hours.
2. Do priority repairs within 7 days, or no later than 30 working days.
3. Do planned works, including door replacements, within 90 working days.
In the communal door to the resident’s building was repeatedly vandalised by non-residents. The landlord explained that it had repaired the door on at least 6 occasions in 6 months. The repairs did not resolve the problem. For example, the landlord recorded that the door was broken on 26 July 2023, 6 days after it had last been fixed. The landlord’s records show that it agreed to replace the door with a more secure door on 18 August 2023. This was in line with its ASB, domestic abuse and hate crime policy which says that it aims to design out ASB.
However, given the number of ineffective repairs it had done by this date, it should considered an alternative door sooner. Its failure to do so caused additional distress and worry to the resident, who explained that she had difficulty sleeping and felt intimidated by the youths coming into the communal areas of the building.
While the landlord agreed to replace the door on 18 August 2023, it did not do so for a further 6.5 months. This was significantly outside of its repairs service standard timescale of 90 working days for planned works including door renewals. In part the delay was caused by the availability of the door supplier, which was outside of the landlord’s control. However, in its stage 1 response the landlord accepted that there was a delay in its progress arranging the replacement. The landlord’s records show that there was a further delay of around a month in around January 2024 caused by an internal administrative process around the approval of the order. As the landlord did not explain the specific reason for this delay, we can only conclude that it was a further unreasonable delay.
The landlord should have communicated the dates for the door replacement with the resident. It agreed to do this in its stage 1 complaint response. There was no evidence that the landlord told the resident when it would replace the door or kept her updated when there was a delay. This was not appropriate. It will have caused the resident additional uncertainty.
After the post–boxes were first vandalised, the landlord replaced them on 16 March 2023. Some, including the resident’s were vandalised again in July 2023, and others were over the following months, leaving many unusable. The landlord’s decided not to replace them until after it had replaced the front entrance door to the building. The post–box replacement cost a considerable amount of money, so the landlord’s reluctance to replace them before it replaced the door was understandable. However, the landlord should have taken action to ensure that residents had a secure way to receive post sooner. It could have considered:
1. Repairing the post-boxes and retrofitting them with additional security features, for example an anti-theft baffle.
2. Upgrading the post–boxes to a ‘secured by design’ post–box. Secured by design products meet “police preferred specification”, after going through a rigorous process of security testing.
3. Paying for a royal mail PO box or ‘keepsafe’ service for residents until it could replace the door. The keepsafe service is one where royal mail retain post sent to specified addresses for a pre-arranged duration.
It is not clear when the landlord replaced the post–boxes again, but the landlord’s records indicate that they were not repaired before March 2024, around 8 months after the resident reported that her post-box was vandalised. In this time, she had no secure way to receive mail. During the time that the resident and her neighbours reported that their post had been stolen or ripped up. This may have been avoided if the landlord acted sooner.
Cumulatively, the failures in the landlord’s handling of the communal repairs amount to maladministration. To put things right for the resident, the landlord is ordered to pay the resident £300 in compensation. The Ombudsman’s remedies guidance says awards in this range are appropriate where there has been maladministration by the landlord but this has not had a permanent impact on the outcome of the complaint for the resident. There was no permanent impact as both repairs have been completed and the landlord has not received any further reports of ASB or vandalism.

The landlord’s handling of damp and mould in communal areas of the building.

The landlord’s records indicate that it carried out repairs to 2 parts of the flat roof on the resident’s building in around February 2023. After the repair, we have not seen any evidence the landlord was aware of a reoccurrence of damp and mould in the communal areas until this was reported by the resident during a discussion about her complaint on or around 24 October 2023.
While landlords should aim for “first time fix” repairs, it was reasonable for the landlord to attempt to repair the roof rather than replace it, if there was a realistic chance that the repair would be successful. Landlords have a responsibility to provide a value for money service and carrying out a repair is often more cost effective than doing a roof replacement. The Ombudsman has not seen any evidence that the landlord should have considered a replacement rather than a repair when the leak from the roof and resulting damp and mould were first reported.
As repairs to the damp and mould in the communal area were planned repairs, the landlord should have completed them within 90 working days in line with its repairs policy timescale. The landlord replaced the flat roof in December 2023 and redecorated the communal areas of the building in the week beginning 8 January 2024. This was within its policy timescale.
In its stage 1 complaint response, the landlord said that it had referred the resident’s concerns about damp and mould to the relevant team. The landlord said it would update residents when it had further information about the repair. The resident told the Ombudsman the landlord did not update her as it agreed. As the landlord has not provided any evidence that contradicts this, the Ombudsman accepts her account. While the landlord should have updated residents as it agreed, this did not cause significant detriment to the resident, as it did not affect the landlord’s completion of the repair within its policy time scale. As such, the Ombudsman found no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of damp and mould in the communal areas of the resident’s building.

The landlord’s complaints handling

The Housing Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code) sets out our expectations for landlords’ complaint handling practices. It defines a complaint as “an expression of dissatisfaction, however made, about the standard of service, actions or lack of action by the organisation, its own staff, or those acting on its behalf, affecting an individual resident or group of residents”. The landlord’s complaints policy uses this definition.
The landlord’s complaints policy says it will respond at stage 1 of its complaints process within 10 working days of receiving a resident’s complaint, and at stage 2 of its complaints process within 20 working days of receiving a resident’s complaint. These timescales are appropriate as they are shorter than the timescales set out in the Code.
However, the landlord failed to meet its policy timescale at stage 1 of the complaints process. It responded to the resident 3 months after she complained on 7 July 2023. The landlord said that the reason for the delay was that it had passed the complaint to its ASB team, to respond to through its ASB process. This was not appropriate. While the landlord’s complaints policy says it does not treat neighbour disputes or first requests for a service as complaints, neither was true in this case:
1. The resident’s complaint was not a neighbour dispute as the people entering the building were not residents.
2. The resident said in her complaint that she had already reported the ASB, so it was not a new service request.
3. It was clear from the complaint that she was dissatisfied with the landlord’s service. This meets the definition of a complaint under the Code.
4. In addition, she raised concerns about the landlord’s handling of other issues, which could not have been resolved through the landlord’s ASB process, such as repairs.
As such, the landlord should have dealt with the resident’s letter as a complaint. The landlord’s actions caused a delay in the complaints process which would have caused the resident avoidable worry and inconvenience.
The landlord’s internal correspondence shows that there were similar issues with case ownership at stage 2 of the complaints process, and the complaint was passed between teams. While there was no evidence that this had a detrimental impact on the resident on this occasion, it is not best practice. Landlords should have a clear complaints process so the ownership of complaints is clear. The landlord should consider whether relevant staff would benefit from additional complaints handling training so they are clear about the complaints handling process.
In addition, the landlord failed to respond to all elements of the resident’s complaint at stage 1 of the complaints process. The resident said in her complaint that she had applied for rehousing on medical grounds but her application had been rejected. She said she wanted to be rehoused. The landlord should have responded to this but it did not do so. This could have caused the resident to feel that the landlord was not taking her concerns seriously. The resident told the Ombudsman that she still wants to be rehoused. To put things right for the resident, the landlord should contact her to give her rehousing advice.
The landlord responded to the resident’s complaint at stage 2 of its complaints process 23 working days after we asked it to escalate the resident’s complaint. Although this was outside of its policy timescale, a delay of this length is not excessive, and would not have had a significant detrimental impact on the resident.
Overall, the landlord’s complaint handling failures amount to maladministration, and caused the resident avoidable inconvenience and frustration. To put things right, the landlord is ordered to pay the resident £150 in compensation. The Ombudsman’s remedies guidance says that awards in this range are appropriate where there were failures in the landlord’s handling of the case, and these have adversely affected the resident but the failure may have been of a shorter duration and may not have affected the overall outcome of the complaint.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of:
1. The resident’s reports of anti-social behaviour.
2. The repairs to the communal front entrance door and post–boxes.
3. The landlord’s complaints handling.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of damp and mould in the communal area of the resident’s building.
In accordance with paragraph 42 (a) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the resident’s complaints about damp and mould in her home, and fire safety in the building, were outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

Within 4 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord is ordered to:
1. Apologise to the resident in writing for the failures identified in this report. It should consider:

i) Its communication with the resident.

ii) The delays in its repair to the communal front entrance door and post boxes.

iii) It should identify any learning it has taken from her case that will help it to improve its services going forward.

Directly pay the resident £650 in compensation, made up of:
1. £200 in compensation for the additional distress and inconvenience its handling of the ASB case caused her.
2. £300 for the avoidable worry caused by its failure to complete the communal repairs in an appropriate timescale.
3. £150 for the avoidable distress and inconvenience caused by its complaints handling failures.

The landlord must demonstrate to the Ombudsman that it has complied with these orders within the timescales given.

Recommendations

The landlord should contact the resident to ask if she would like it to consider her concerns about fire safety in the block and damp and mould in her home at stage 2 of its complaints process.
The landlord should contact the resident to ask give her rehousing advice.
The landlord should consider whether relevant staff would benefit from additional training so they are clear about its complaints handling process.