South Tyneside Council (202234416)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202234416

South Tyneside Homes

29 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 response to the resident’s reports of outstanding repairs to both the interior and exterior of her home, including reports of water ingress and mould growth.
The Service has also considered the landlord’s record keeping and complaint handling.

Background

The resident is a secure tenant of the landlord who is a local authority. Its housing management service, including the delivery of repairs, is carried out on its behalf by an arms length management organisation (ALMO). For clarity within this report both are described as the landlord.
The property is a 3 bedroom house and the resident has held her tenancy since 14 April 2014. The resident has told the Service that she has mental health issues and that her son is autistic.
The landlord acknowledged a complaint from the resident on 27 April 2023. In this she had said that there were several repairs outstanding to her home and listed these. She said that her home was cold and draughty, and that one bedroom was affected by damp. Having acknowledged her complaint, the landlord wrote to the resident on 15 May 2023 to extend its target for responding as it wished to speak to her to discuss the issues she had raised. It wrote again on 26 May 2023 with a further extension as it had been unable to speak with the resident. It said that it would provide its formal response by 12 June 2023. Meanwhile, the resident contacted this Service for assistance.
The landlord wrote to the resident on 12 June 2023. In this it said that it had received contact from this Service in relation to her complaint. It said that it had made attempts to speak with the resident directly about her complaint on 15 May, 26 May, and 12 June 2023. It had also written to her requesting contact regarding her repairs. It listed the repairs that had been included within the complaint as:
1. A leak coming through the roof.
2. Gaps to the toilet and bathroom window.
3. A draughty kitchen door.
4. Holes in walls where there had previously been pipes.
5. The garden path required repairing.

It said that it had checked the repair history for the resident’s home and set out the actions it had taken. It said that:

An inspection of the roof to her home had been carried out on 25 May 2023 in response to her reports of a leak. It said that it had found no issues.
The gutters to the roofline had been cleared on 15 May 2023.
On 31 March 2023 it had carried out repairs to and resealed both the front and back doors of the property. This had been done both internally and externally. It had also blocked a vent.
It had completed plastering to the walls in the resident’s home on 31 May 2023.
Works to renew the garden path were scheduled to take place on 4 and 5 September 2023.

In conclusion it apologised that the resident felt that it had not provided a satisfactory level of service. It said that its investigation had found that its procedures had been correctly followed and it did not uphold her complaint.

On 12 December 2023 the landlord completed works to install extractor fans to the kitchen and bathroom in the resident’s home. It also provided the resident with user guides for the fans, together with a guide to managing damp and condensation.
The resident contacted this Service on 4 January 2024. She said that she had not received the landlord response to her complaint and remained unhappy with its handling of her repairs. Following contact with the resident, the Service wrote to the landlord on 19 March 2024. We asked the landlord to accept an escalation of the resident’s complaint and to respond within 20 working days. The landlord acknowledged this. It wrote to the resident on 15 April 2024 advising that it needed to extend the target for its response to 2 May 2024. It said that it was awaiting appointment dates for the repairs that the resident had highlighted as outstanding during a call with the landlord.
On 23 April 2024 the landlord completed a survey of the resident’s home. This captured a number of follow up actions to be taken and recorded who within the landlord’s staff these had been referred to. The record of the survey further noted water damage to one of the bedrooms, that the windows were draughty, that radiators should be checked and that there was a need to upgrade extractor fans. This further noted that the guttering needed replacing.
The landlord provided its stage 2 complaint response to the resident on 1 May 2024. It said that it had spoken with the resident on 9 April 2024 about her complaint and set out the list of outstanding repairs she had raised as:
1. Holes in the external walls.
2. Loose brickwork under the kitchen window.
3. A snapped lintel.
4. Footpath to the property crumbling and causing a trip hazard.
5. Leaks from the guttering into a bedroom.
6. Water ingress through a large extractor fan.
7. Leaks through the front door when it rains.
8. Windows reported as lose and draughty.
9. Cracks and holes in the bathroom
10. A leaking radiator in the kitchen.
11. Request for a new kitchen.
In its response it said that:
1. it had investigated the issues she had raised and confirmed the actions that had been taken in response to her stage 1 complaint.
2. it would be addressing all the repair issues she had raised through inspections and repairs. It separated the repairs that had been raised at stage 1 and those raised at stage 2 of her complaint.
3. appointment dates and times had been provided for each of the issues raised. These covered a range of appointment to be attended between 19 April and 8 May 2024.
4. its major works team had contacted the resident on 29 April 2024 and had visited her home on 30 April 2024 to discuss the kitchen replacement.
5. she had not been given appropriate advice about redecorating following plastering at her home. It agreed that it would arrange for its painting team leader to contact her and arrange to redecorate her landing.
6. it apologised for the inconvenience caused to her and for the poor level of service that she had received. It offered her £205 compensation in recognition of the delays, poor record keeping, poor communication, stress, and inconvenience.
7. it had taken learning from her complaint, both regarding the advice provided to residents following plastering within a home and how its complaints officers should maintain oversight of repairs that had been raised as part of a complaint.
The resident requested that the Service investigate her complaint. She said that the issues had been ongoing for over 2 years. She wanted the repairs to be completed and was seeking compensation for the additional heating costs she had incurred. She said that the works were still incomplete and that this had impacted on her family, affecting both their physical and mental health.

Assessment and findings

Policy and procedures

The tenancy agreement sets out the responsibilities in respect of repairs to the property. At 4.5 it says that the landlord will “repair the structure and exterior of your home and the building of which your home may form a part”. The resident is responsible for taking proper care of the home and reporting any fault or damage to the landlord immediately and “you must keep appointments when made” (point 6.1).
The landlord’s repairs and maintenance policy says that providing an effective repairs and maintenance service is a fundamental responsibility of housing management and is a key priority for its residents. It acknowledges its legal responsibility as set out in Section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985. This creates an implied term in tenancy agreements that a landlord must carry out certain repairs. It places a statutory obligation on the landlord to keep in repair the structure and exterior of the property. It says that a landlord should repair a housing defect ‘within a reasonable amount of time’. This is not specific but depends on the circumstances and levels of urgency.
The policy set out that it is the landlord’s aim to complete repairs in one visit to a resident’s home. Where this is not possible, due to the need to order parts or materials, the landlord will inform the resident of the date for the repair completion and will provide contact details for the person arranging completion of the works. Part 7 of the policy sets out its repair categories and its maximum response time under each heading:
1. Emergency repairs – Attend and make safe within 4 hours.
2. Urgent repairs – completed in 1 to 3 working days by appointment.
3. Routine repairs – completed in 20 working days.
4. Planned repairs – maximum 3 months.
This further provides a schedule of responsibility for addressing repairs to the home. All repairs except those considered an emergency will be appointment based. The landlord will also use an appointment system where there is a need for it to undertake an inspection.
The landlord has a responsibility under the Housing Health and Safety Rating System (HHSRS), introduced by the Housing Act 2004, to assess hazards and risks within its rented properties. Damp and mould growth are a potential hazard and therefore the landlord is required to consider whether any damp and mould problems in its properties amount to a hazard and require remedying.
The landlord has a guide to compensation payments that it may offer residents in specified circumstances. This includes headings for customer care, complaint responses and repairs. The landlord operates a 2 stage complaints process that is aligned to the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code.

Scope of investigation

The resident has explained to the Service how the outstanding repairs to her property and the associated draughts and dampness had a negative impact on her and her family in terms of their physical and mental health. The Ombudsman does not doubt the resident’s comments and understands this situation may have had a detrimental impact on her wellbeing. However, the Service is unable to draw conclusions on the causation of, or liability for, impacts on health and wellbeing. Matters of personal injury or damage to health, their investigation and compensation, are not part of the complaints process, and are more appropriately addressed by way of the courts or the landlord’s liability insurer as a personal injury claim. We have, however, considered whether the resident has been caused distress and inconvenience because of any failings on behalf of the landlord.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s report of several repairs

The list of repairs the resident raised were extensive and highlighted several concerns for the resident around both the external and internal condition of her home. This included reports that her home was damp and cold due to water ingress and draughts. The landlord has provided the Service with a record of repairs raised for the resident’s home throughout the period of her tenancy. As the resident has stressed that the issues highlighted in her complaint had been occurring since 2021, in reviewing the landlord’s records these have been considered from January 2021 onwards. It is noted that the landlord repair logs record the date the repair was raised, the target time for the repair and the completion date alongside a description of the repair. These do not capture the detail of the works carried out or if follow on works were required. It would be reasonable for such detail to be recorded. Doing so would ensure that the landlord maintained an accurate audit trail of the works carried out at its properties.
The repair records show that the resident first raised an issue of draughts through the doors to her property in March 2021 and again in December 2021. The resident reported issues with the guttering in July 2022 and February 2023, alongside a leak from the roof reported in December 2022. While the records show that the reported repairs were completed within the target timescale, there is evidence that repeat orders had been raised to address the same issues. The records indicate a new front door was fitted to the resident’s home in September 2022 but she later reported that the front door was allowing water into the property when it rained. It is clear from this that some of the issues raised by the resident had been ongoing for some time, despite repair requests being made. It is unclear whether this is a failure to complete the works to a reasonable standard in the first instance, if indeed the repairs were completed or that there were repeat failures of elements within the resident’s home. It would be reasonable for the landlord to have maintained fuller repair records, capturing the works carried out and details of any follow on works required. This would ensure that it had a clear audit trail of repairs carried out and be able to provide a contemporaneous record for independent review. That it had not done so demonstrates poor record keeping and is a failing.
In April 2024 the landlord’s inspection record noted that the guttering was causing a leak into one of the bedrooms. The landlord has confirmed that these gutters were replaced on 27 June 2024. It is understood that due to the type of guttering that was in place on the property that the landlord had a major works programme in place to renew these on its homes. Given the leak into the resident’s home the programmed works were brought forward. While it is positive that the landlord took these steps to address this issue it is not clear why these works were not carried out at an earlier stage when the resident raised her concerns in July 2022 and February 2023.
In its complaint responses the landlord set out the repairs that the resident had reported and the steps taken to address these. At stage 1 it provided details of the actions it had taken to address the resident’s reported repairs. All these had been carried out ahead of the letter. It is noted that the landlord said it had made attempts to speak to the resident ahead of sending its response. Having been unable to speak with the resident prior to responding to her complaint it would have been appropriate for the landlord to have continued to follow up with her. This would have enabled it to ensure that the works carried out had dealt with her concerns. This was a clear opportunity for the landlord to ensure the effectiveness of its repairs service and to rebuild the landlord tenant relationship. That it did not do so was a failure by the landlord.
There is no evidence that the landlord carried out a wider investigation into the resident’s complaint, reviewing the history of repairs to her home. She had said that the issues had been ongoing for some time and there is evidence within the landlord’s own records of repairs being raised in 2021 and 2022 to deal with issues covered within her complaint. This suggests a failure to engage with the complaint in a meaningful way. The landlord delivered a complaint response that focused on its actions to deal with the reported repairs, which was reasonable, but failed to acknowledge the history of repairs at the property. The transactional nature of its response suggests that it had considered the resident’s contact as a service request, as opposed to a complaint. It did not consider her concerns about the level of service she had received or seek to investigate why the resident was unhappy. This was a missed opportunity to put things right for the resident. This was also an opportunity for the landlord to review its repairs process and its effectiveness in ensuring that it met its policy aim of completing repairs at the first visit.
The landlord appropriately acknowledged its failure to ensure that all the repairs had been completed in its stage 2 response. Here it noted that as part of its learning from the complaint, that its investigating officers should make a note of the completion date of any repairs and then follow up with the resident to ensure their satisfaction. To have done so may have avoided the escalation of the resident’s complaint and the inconvenience caused to her by the protracted nature of the repairs being completed. That it identified this failing was positive within its stage 2 response.
However, given the issues identified by this investigation, there was service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaints. In not considering the wider context of her complaint at stage 1 and reviewing the history of repairs to her home, it failed to identify shortcomings in its repairs service. It then failed to follow up to ensure that all the repairs carried out had been competed to a satisfactory standard. This led to a potentially avoidable escalation of the resident’s complaint and to a number of repairs remaining outstanding.
The landlord had undertaken inspections of the resident’s home in February 2023 and in April 2024. Repair works were raised as an outcome to these inspections. As there was an overlap in the range of works specified following these inspections, there is evidence that there was a failure to ensure that the repairs carried out addressed the issues that they were intended to. It is particularly noted that an order was raised in November 2023 to “point the rear path, patch point the wall under the kitchen window and point up around the gas pipe.” Further works were raised in April 2024 to address holes in all external walls, a hole in the kitchen ceiling where the gas meter is located and to deal with the path which was described as crumbling. There is no indication that the original works were not completed, but the extent of the additional repairs raised suggest that these may not have been completed to a satisfactory standard. This was a failing in the landlord’s handling of repairs to the resident’s home and a failure to adhere to its own repairs policy.
An inspection of the resident’s home was arranged following escalation of her complaint to stage 2. Given the extent of the repair issues set out in her complaint, it would have been appropriate for the landlord to have arranged a full survey when it first received her complaint and as a part of its response at stage 1. That it did not do so was a failing.
Following the escalation of her complaint the actions of the landlord have been positive. The landlord acknowledged its earlier failures and set out the actions it would take in the future. While it is positive that it has acknowledged its failing, there was a significant time lapse between the 2 stages of the resident’s complaints. During this time many of the repair issues within her home remained outstanding, including issues of water ingress. This amounts to maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s repair reports.
The resident had raised with the landlord that her redecoration following plastering with her home had failed. The landlord acknowledged that it had failed to provide appropriate advice to the resident about redecorating. In its stage 2 response, the landlord offered to carry out some redecoration of the resident’s home. This was an appropriate response. The landlord has advised that it has contacted the resident to arrange to decorate the stairs and landing within her home but that she has declined this offer. A recommendation has been made that the landlord consider making a final offer of assistance to the resident.
The Ombudsman has considered the landlord’s offer, made in its stage 2 response of £205 compensation in respect of the delays, poor communication and record keeping and the stress and inconvenience caused to the resident. Given the extended time over which the resident was raising her repair concerns and the landlord’s failure to effectively address all these issues in a timely manner, this offer was not proportionate. An order has been made, in line with the Services guidance on remedies for an additional amount of compensation in recognition of the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of outstanding repairs to both the interior and exterior of her home, including reports of water ingress and mould growth.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure in the landlord’s record keeping.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Orders

Within 4 weeks of the date of this report the landlord must:
1. Apologise to the resident for the identified failings. This should be in line with the Service’s guidance on remedies.
2. Pay the resident a total of £550 compensation broken down as follows:
  1. £400 for the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident and her family as a result of the landlord’s handling of repairs.
  2. £150 for the distress and inconvenience caused by the landlord’s failure to engage with the complaint in a meaningful way.
3. This is in addition to the £205 offered by the landlord. This sum should be paid to the resident now if it has not been paid already.
The landlord should arrange a survey of the resident’s home to confirm that all repairs have been completed to the satisfaction of the resident. The outcome of this survey should be shared with the resident and the Service. Any repairs identified through the survey should be carried out within 2 weeks of the date of the inspection.
Within 8 weeks of the date of this report the landlord must undertake a review of its handling of the resident’s complaint and repairs and consider how these processes could have been improved. This should include consideration of its record keeping practices and how it can ensure that a contemporaneous record of the works it carries out is maintained. It should further consider its approach to this and consider the development of additional guidance and training for staff.

Recommendations

The landlord should consider making a final offer to the resident of redecoration to her stairs and landing, in line with the offer made at stage 2 of its complaints process.