Southend-on-Sea City Council (202234954)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202234954

Southend-on-Sea City Council

28 March 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:
1. The landlords handling of the residents request for a replacement boundary wall.
2. The landlords handling of the residents request for a new door to the balcony in her sons bedroom.
3. The Ombudsman will also be considering the landlords handling of the residents complaint.

Background

The resident has held a secure tenancy with the landlord for a 3-bedroom upper floor flat with garden since 19 November 2012. The resident lives in the property with her son.
The landlord reports that the resident is reported to have vulnerabilities, she has a hearing difficulty and uses a hearing aid.

Summary of events

In February 2022, the landlords surveyor and one of its contractors attended the property to inspect a draughty ill-fitting external door in her son’s bedroom. Following this visit the resident was of the view, that the contractor felt the door was not fit for purpose and needed replacement. The landlord was of the view that following discussion with the contractor, it was agreed the egress window/stroke door could be overhauled and re-gasketed to improve the seal.
The landlord said the works were ordered and completed in February 2022.
The landlord said that while they were present at the property the resident pointed out that the boundary hedge had died, and she asked if she could have it replaced with a wall. The landlord said that it would look into the matter, and get back to her.
On 22 July 2022, following a failed submission on the landlords complaints portal the resident was asked to email in her complaint. In summary she said:
1. She had been advised by the landlords surveyor, that she could have a new wall or fence to replace the dead hedges around the boundary of the communal garden.
2. She had no security around the garden, and it was looking unsightly. She had now been waiting for 3 months, and despite calling the surveyor numerous times to chase, she had received no response.
3. She had contacted the contractor who gave a provisional start date of 14 July 2022. This was subsequently cancelled, without telling her. She had since found out that this now had to go to planning, as her property was in a conservation area. If it had gone to planning 3 months ago, she might now have some security.
The landlord responded on 8 August 2022. It apologised for the delay in getting the repairs undertaken and the lack of communication she had received, which it agreed was unacceptable. It confirmed an error had been made by the surveyor who had not recognised the property was in a conservation area. Historical photographs have confirmed the property had never had a boundary wall, it had coping stones on 2 courses of brick and a hedge. It asked the resident to confirm who had removed the hedge.
The resident provided photographs, and said that originally, she was advised the boundary was her responsibility. A tree surgeon relative had confirmed sections of hedge were dead and removed some of it for her when it became dangerous. She says she still disputed the boundary was her responsibility, it was causing her no end of stress due to the lack of security and the amount of rubbish collecting there.
On 12 August 2022, the landlord confirmed that the boundary was not her responsibility. It confirmed it was looking at options and advised under repairs it would be reinstating the 2 courses of bricks and coping stones and planting a new hedge. The option the landlord was suggesting was to raise the 2 courses of bricks and build a wall to be rendered the same as the front of the property. It was however having to wait for the conservation team to provide approval. It committed to providing an update on 23 August 2022.
The landlord emailed the resident on 30 August 2022, and confirmed that a planning application was required, as well as leaseholder consultation as the boundary was communal. It was mindful that this process was not quick, and the resident had already been waiting some time for resolution. Based on the pictures the resident had submitted it was arranging for “Heras fencing” to be fitted as a temporary measure.
The resident raised a complaint with the landlords complaints team on 14 December 2022. In summary she said:
1. She wanted to know why the wall was taking so long to action. She appreciated it had gone to planning but the issue was raised in February 2022.
2. She said the garden was an embarrassment. She was aware of a manager monitoring the issue, but she was not prepared to keep phoning for updates and felt by now there should be an answer.
3. She was also frustrated that she was still awaiting a new door for her sons bedroom. It was an outside door and was not considered fit for purpose, by an officer that visited her home with the surveyor. It lets in cold air and condensation drips down the door. Her sons bedding was also damp which she found unacceptable.
4. She had tried phoning the landlord on 3 occasions and sent 3 emails and they had not had the decency to contact her even though managers had been included, which related to a letter she received in 2021 and still had not been contacted regarding the contents of letter.
5. She strongly felt there was a complete lack of follow up from the landlord and that service with it had significantly declined.
6. She should be compensated for the stress and worry and the cost of gas and electricity heating in a room that is not adequately insulated.
On 20 December 2022, the landlord provided a stage 1 response to part of the residents complaint about outstanding repairs, relating to the bedroom door. In summary its said
1. It had investigated the complaint by checking the repair history and interviewing the surveyor concerned.
2. Unfortunately, the reason why the bedroom door had not been replaced, was because internal doors, fall under Tenants responsibly. This was a condition of the resident’s tenancy agreement, which she would have signed when her tenancy commenced.
The resident was not happy with this outcome and said she was increasingly frustrated. She confirmed on the 18 January 2023, that she wanted the complaint escalated to stage 2 of the complaints process. Her sons bedroom door was not internal, it was a door that led to the balcony. The surveyor visited to inspect in February 2022, and the person that accompanied him said the door “was not fit for purpose”. She accused the landlord of being unprofessional and felt the situation had become “ridiculous”. So much heat had been lost through the door, her sons bedding was damp in the winter months, and he has had recurrent chest infections. The outcome she requested, was for the door to be replaced within a month, and for her to be compensated for the time it had taken and the stress of keep contacting the landlord.
The landlord sent an acknowledgement of the escalation of the complaint to stage 2 on the 19 January 2023 and provided its stage 2 response on 14 February 2022. In summary the landlord said:
1. It understood the complaint to be about the “prolonged nature of addressing the requirements to reinstate the boundary wall, and the associated rubbish and security concerns. It had also been advised by the complaints team of an issue with a previous complaint associated with the replacement of a bedroom door.
2. It partially upheld the complaint because although resolution to the boundary wall required a planning application and agreement from the Council’s conservation team, which was a protracted process, it found that this could have been progressed in a more proactive manner.
3. In resolution it would direct that the application be progressed with SCC as a matter of urgency and would involve introducing additional resources to the Maintenance Team to conclude.
4. In relation to the door it had reviewed the correspondence in the matter and found the decision at stage one to be correct.
On 16 February 2023, in response to the landlords stage 2 reply, the resident wrote to the complaints team advising that she had explained many times before that the door is not internal, it is an outside door to the balcony, and she would like compensation for the loss of heating, that her son had suffered ill health as a result. The response about the wall was vague, and gave no idea when to expect it be completed.
On 20 February 2023, the landlords investigating officer decided that someone from the maintenance team should attend the residents property with regard to the door.
An internal email confirmed that the surveyor and a contractor had visited the residents property the previous year. An egress window in the sons bedroom was reported as draughty. It was agreed with the contractor to overhaul the egress window/door and re-gasket to ensure a good seal, and order was raised and as far as they were aware the works had been completed in February 2022. It confirmed the boundary wall was to be re-built and he still had to pass information to a colleague to make a full planning application.
The resident emailed the landlord on 1 March 2023 to chase the external door.
The landlord wrote to the resident on the 23 March 2023, advising that the complaint investigator had reviewed the stage 2 decision and decided that there are no grounds for it to pay compensation for a loss of heating. As explained in the stage 1 “internal doors are the responsibility of the tenant as per the tenancy conditions”.
An internal email 23 March 2023, indicated that there was some confusion over the door the resident was complaining about. The surveyor had said it was internal, the contractor had told the resident it was not. It agreed someone needed to visit and take a photograph.

Post Complaint Response

10 May 2023 the landlords surveyor was asked to visit the property, as the resident had requested an urgent update on progress with the wall. The residents was not in, but called the surveyor back. He explained about the need for a full planning application, the resident told him she was unhappy about this as he should have known it was a conservation area at the time he first visited. The surveyor explained that he had not long been working for the landlord at the time of his first visit.
An internal email from the landlords investigating officer 11 May 2023, asks colleagues whether the planning application has been made, and whether there is an alternative solution to the issue that would not require planning consent.
The landlord emailed the resident on 14 June 2023, apologising for the delay in replying to the ongoing boundary complaint received the previous year. It confirmed that following consultation with the leaseholder downstairs, he had not given consent to build a new boundary wall, as he was not willing to pay the associated costs he would incur, as a result the wall would not be built. Instead they would revert back to replanting new hedges. It offered the resident £500 compensation for the delay in getting the matter resolved and the poor communication received.
The resident emailed the landlord to accept the £500, but pointed out that she was still challenging the issue. The door issue had never been resolved, and she would still be seeking compensation for the stress she had been caused, the wasted heating and for her son sleeping with condensation running down the windows and damp bedding for 3 years.
The landlord responded the same day, it said it had been waiting for a response from the parks department regarding the boundary hedge. Parks had recommended cherry laurel hedging, which is fast growing. It was now looking at the size which could be 2-3ft to start with. With regard to the egress window/door the surveyor had advised works were previously completed, but based on her email, he would arrange for a different contractor to attend and produce a report on the window. Once received it would be able to comment further. It confirmed the compensation remained at £500.
On 1 August 2023, the landlord contacted the resident to arrange a grounds maintenance contractor to attend to provide a quote for the hedging. With regards to the egress window/door, the contractor said it had been unable to make contact with her for an appointment to attend.
The resident emailed the same day expressing her dissatisfaction at the length of time it was taking, and why the surveyor was visiting again. She disputed the door contractor had tried to contact her as no telephone messages had been left or a card through the door. She was also still waiting to hear about the compensation for the loss of the heat from the badly fitted door (since it was changed in 2013) and the damp bedding.
The landlord replied straightaway, agreeing that the way the matter had been dealt with was unacceptable, a meeting had taken place with both the director of Operations and the Director of Finance, and they would like to increase the offer of compensation to £1000, which would be for service received, delays in work being undertaken, loss of heat, damp duvet and health conditions mentioned. The resident advised she had not received the previous £500 compensation and could it confirm the £1000 was on top of the original offer.
The landlord said it was £1000 in total but following some debate on 2 August 2023, the landlord agreed to pay a total of £1500 compensation.
On 9 August 2023, an email confirmed that the hedge work was complete, the new door had been measured up for and ordered and would be installed in two weeks.

Assessment

Scope

The resident has mentioned as part of her complaint that the landlords failure to act, to address the issue with the ill- fitting door in her sons bedroom affected his health. The Ombudsman does not doubt the residents comments. However, as this Service is an informal alternative to the courts, it is unable to establish legal liability or whether a landlord’s actions or lack of action had a detrimental impact on a resident’s health. Nor can it calculate or award damages. The Ombudsman is therefore unable to consider the personal injury aspects of the resident’s complaint. These matters are better suited for consideration by a court or via a personal injury claim. Nevertheless, the Ombudsman has considered the distress and inconvenience that may have been caused to the resident.

Landlords legal and policy context

The tenancy agreement requires the landlord to keep in repair the structure and exterior of the property including drains, external pipes, gutters, and external windows. This aligns with its repairing obligation at section 11 of the landlord and Tenant Act 1985. Repairs must also be completed within a reasonable period of time.
Repairs information on the landlords website, states that the landlord has responsibility for the structure and exterior of residents homes, fences which form a boundary between the property and areas used by the general public, and communal areas. Emergency repairs should receive a response within 2 hours and the issues rectified within 24 hours. Non-urgent, routine repairs should be responded to within 28 days of being reported. On receipt of a repair the customer services team will raise a job order with the contractor and contact the resident within 5 days to make an appointment.
The landlord has a 2-stage complaint process. Stage 1 complaints must be made within 6 months of the event happening. Once received it will be acknowledged within 5 working days and responded to within 10 working days. If a resident is not satisfied with the outcome, of the stage 1 they can request escalation to stage 2 within 6 months of the stage 1 response. The stage 2 investigation will be carried out by a senior member of staff, who has not had any previous involvement with the complaint. A stage-2 complaint should be responded to within 20 working days.
If failings are identified the complaint policy commits to act to put in place remedial action, which will be considered on a case-by-case basis. This may be an apology, specific action e.g. a repair or an award of financial compensation. Financial compensation will consider:
1. Actual proven financial loss sustained as a direct result of the service failure.
2. Avoidable inconvenience, distress, detriment, or other unfair impact of the service failure.

Findings

The landlords handling of the residents request for a new boundary wall.

The landlords repairs information to tenants, commits to having repairing responsibilities for fences/ walls that form a boundary between one of its properties and areas that are used by members of the public. As this was applicable to the boundary divide to the residents communal garden, the landlord was obliged to renew the boundary divide when the resident reported that the existing hedge had died.
The resident asked for the hedge to be replaced with a wall. The type of divide used for the boundary is at the discretion of the landlord, as the cost to supply and maintain is down to them. It did however give due consideration to the residents request and agreed to look into it, which was reasonable.
The resident said the landlord agreed to the replacement wall. However a further 3 months passed, and the landlord had not progressed the works to replace the boundary wall, which was not reasonable. Landlords are required to carry out repairs in a reasonable amount of time. While there is no statutory definition for a reasonable amount of time, the landlord had set out that 28 days was a reasonable response time for a routine repair, as stated in its repairs information to residents.
Evidence showed that not only did the landlord not progress the repair, but it also failed to communicate with the resident. The initial 3-month delay is unexplained. The contractor had given her a provisional date to start the boundary wall, but with no notification from the landlord the job did not progress. Despite numerous messages left with the landlord on the matter, the resident said, nobody returned her calls or explained why work was not progressing which was not reasonable.
After the initial 3 month delay it then came to light that the resident lived in a conservation area, which meant the boundary works required a planning application and permission from the Council’s conservation team. Properties in conservation areas are usually subject to restrictions and additional planning controls to protect special historic and architectural elements of a place. As these restrictions apply it would be reasonable to expect that the landlord would know which of its properties were in a conservation area, and have it recorded clearly on its records. The fact it was not picked up when the repair was reported was because the surveyor was new to the business and was clearly not able to easily obtain this information, which was not reasonable. The residents expectation had been unnecessarily raised on what could be achieved and how quickly, and a repair that had already exceeded the landlords target response times was to be delayed considerably further.
Following the residents formal complaint 22 July 2022, the landlord started to look into the matter more proactively. In its complaint responses it confirmed that if this went through as a repair, it would only be able to provide what was historically there, which was 2 courses of bricks and a hedge, but it was prepared to consider a rendered brick wall for the resident which was in-keeping with the front of the property, which was reasonable. It went onto explain that this would be dependent on permission from the conservation team, which had been requested and a date was provided to update the resident which was appropriate.
The landlord did provide a further update on 30 August 2022, it had been confirmed that a full planning application was required and consultation with the leaseholder downstairs, which it appropriately confirmed would lead to further delay. To mitigate against this, it agreed to provide a temporary fence, to alleviate some of the problems, like security and litter the resident had experienced with the lack of a boundary divide, which was reasonable. However it is unclear whether the temporary boundary fence was ever progressed.
The resident raised the boundary wall issue again in a complaint email of 14 December 2022, as work had not progressed. There was evidence throughout the complaint process that the complaints team consistently raised the residents issues with the relevant teams, but failures in communication, came from the maintenance and operations side of the organisation. In the complaint of the 14 December, other aspects of the complaint were responded to, but the issue of the boundary wall was ignored, and no further progress was brought about by the resident chasing it which was not reasonable.
The findings of the investigating officer at stage two of the complaints procedure, upheld the residents complaint in respect of the boundary wall. While the planning process was time consuming, it found the delays were not solely down to the process, the landlords lack of proactivity was contributory, which appeared a fair assessment. Follow up events however, identified the response lacked transparency, it had not made clear, that a year on, the planning process and leaseholder consultation had not been progressed at all. Despite assurances in the response that this would be progressed as a matter of urgency, it never was, which was not reasonable.
In June 2023, post the final stage response, the landlord advised the resident it would be abandoning its plans to make a planning application and build a boundary wall. This was because the leaseholder in the building, could and would not commit to the £2000 cost this would present to him. This was not unreasonable, landlords are obliged to consult with leaseholders, and take account of their views, particularly where there are financial implications for them. What was unreasonable was that the leasehold consultation should have been the first stage in the process in considering the request for the hedge to be changed to a boundary wall. Instead the landlord delayed, misled the resident in the belief a planning application was under consideration and unnecessarily raised her expectation, which has damaged the relationship and led to a mistrust of the landlord. If the leaseholders view on the matter had been known a year earlier, the decision would have been clear, the residents expectation would have been managed and the planting of a new hedge could have been done in a reasonable timeframe.
In an additional response to the stage 2 complaint, 14 June 2023, the landlord fully acknowledged its failings in this matter, it apologised and offered the resident £500 compensation for the delay in getting the matter resolved and the poor communication she had received. This is within the range that the Ombudsman would recommend for failings that have been extremely inconvenient but not had a permanent impact on a resident, and was therefore a proportionate offer. However as it was not offered as redress through the landlords complaints process it would not be considered enough for the Ombudsman to make a finding of “reasonable redress ”.

The landlords handling of the residents request for a new door to the balcony in her sons bedroom.

The landlord attended the residents property in February 2022, to inspect, the residents report of a poor fitting and draughty external door in her sons bedroom, which was in accordance with its repairing obligations.
The resident said that the outcome of this inspection was that the attending contractor had said “the door was not fit for purpose and needed replacing”. The Ombudsman does not dispute the residents version of events following this inspection, but there was no evidence to support it. The landlord said it raised a job order following the visit, to have the door overhauled and re-gasketed, however the job number quoted was not listed on the repairs schedule information the landlord provided, so this could not be evidenced either.
In September 2022, the resident chased up the landlord for the replacement door in her son’s bedroom. The landlord did not respond, which was not appropriate. Had it done so it may have come to light that the landlord believed it had done the work it felt was required to resolve the issue with the door, and the residents view that the cold and damp had not been resolved, could have been considered. However the failure of the landlord to communicate with the resident meant the opportunity was missed to tackle this earlier.
Following the residents complaint on the matter 14 December 2022, the landlord refused to address the issue with the door because the stage 1 response determined that it was an internal door, which were the residents responsibility. This was not appropriate, the landlord had not properly considered the residents complaint and had provided an incorrect response, which became intrinsic in preventing the matter being resolved for several months.
It was only the residents continued persistence that the landlord decided to reconsider the matter, which considering eventually a new door was required, this was not reasonable. When it did look at the issue again, it became clear that the landlord had no clue what the resident was referring to, and in the end suggested an operative attend and take a photograph. This was of concern, as the landlord claimed to have inspected early in 2022, and ordered the relevant remedial works, so it would have been reasonable to expect it to have records available on the system. The fact the records could not assist, throws into question whether the landlords record keeping was adequate. Some confusion, could have been put down to the fact that the resident refers to it as a door as it gives access to the balcony, and the landlord refers to it as an egress window or egress window/door, however it is noted the resident has always referred to it as a door and this had not prevented the landlord being able to respond in the past.
Eventually post the complaint process, the landlord brought in a new contractor to inspect the egress window/door and it was agreed a new one should be ordered. The landlord in a later response agreed there had been failings in the service provided on this issue and agreed to the residents claim for compensation. With some negotiation from the resident it offered a further £1000. This consisted of £500 for the delay in the progression of works and poor communication received and £500 for heat loss, damp bedding, and health concerns. This amount is within the range that the Ombudsman would recommend for failings that have had a significant long-term impact on a resident, and was therefore a proportionate offer. However as it was not offered as redress through the landlords complaints process it would not be considered enough for the Ombudsman to make a finding of “reasonable redress ”.

The landlords handling of the residents complaint.

The Ombudsman has decided to consider complaint handling as part of this investigation as it identified significant failings in the landlords complaint handling process, which prevented the resident’s complaint being resolved.
In July 2020, the Housing Ombudsman published a new complaint handling code, with the purpose of enabling landlords to resolve complaints raised by their resident’s quickly and to use the learning from complaints to drive service improvements. All member landlords were required to complete a self-assessment against the Code and take appropriate action to ensure their complaint handling was in line with the Code, by 31 December 2020.
The Code requires that a stage 1 response, must confirm in writing:
1. the complaint stage.
2. the complaint definition.
3. the decision on the complaint.
4. the reasons for any decisions made.
5. the details of any remedy offered to put things right.
6. details of any outstanding actions.
7. details of how to escalate the matter to stage two if the resident is not satisfied with the answer.
There were three responses from the stage 1 investigator between the 8 and 30 August 2022. While the responses determined there had been delay and it was the landlords responsibility to progress, the emails were more akin to the process of investigation than an end of investigation response. There was no clearly defined complaint, no decision on whether the residents complaint had been upheld or not, and no clear remedy or offer to put things right. There were outstanding actions, but it was not clear how they would progress or an estimated timeline for completion. There was a commitment to keep the resident updated which was not followed through.
Although the resident experienced further delay and was not satisfied with the outcome, she could not escalate her complaint as she had not been advised that she could, or how to do so. The landlords stage 1 complaint response did not comply with the Code, the landlords complaint handling policy and added to the delay of getting the complaint resolved, which the Code seeks to avoid.
The resident made a further complaint 14 December 2022, when the repairs from the stage 1 complaint had not progressed. The Code states if all or part of the complaint is not resolved to the resident’s satisfaction at stage one it must be progressed to stage two of the landlord’s procedure unless an exclusion ground now applies. An exclusion ground did not apply, but the landlord did not escalate the complaint in accordance with the code.
The Code also states that when residents raise additional complaints during the investigation, where the stage one response has been issued, the complaint should be logged as a new complaint. The residents complaint had raised a new issue in the formal complaint process, of the outstanding repair to the external door, in the son’s bedroom. While the landlord had not escalated the outstanding issues of the residents complaint to stage 2, it did log a further stage 1 for the additional aspect of the complaint, which was appropriate and in line with the Code.
The new stage 1 complaint about the external door in the son’s bedroom, was responded to promptly. However it stated that it had investigated the complaint by checking the repair history and interviewing the surveyor concerned, but as it was an internal door it had no obligation to repair it. The Code requires that landlords set out their understanding of the complaint, and if any aspect of the complaint is unclear, the resident must be asked for clarification. It is unclear why, when the residents complaint was about an external door, the complaint response provided information relating to an internal door, nonetheless it was clear the landlord had failed to determine correctly what the complaint was about.
Not only was this response a failing in the complaint handling process, but the misinformation in its content also informed every further decision the landlord made on the issue. Despite the resident continuing to express her dissatisfaction about the outcome, and telling the landlord the information was incorrect, the resident was not listened to, and resolution to the complaint remained unaddressed.
The residents persistence in pursuing her outstanding repair to the door and her email of dissatisfaction on 18 January 2023, about the information in the stage 1 response, resulted in the landlord, offering to escalate her complaint to stage 2 of its complaints process.
The stage 2 response was issued on 14 February 2023 and stated that the complaint was about “the prolonged nature of addressing the requirements to reinstate the boundary, reduce the dumping of rubbish in the front garden and security concerns”. This was not the content of the residents escalation email, acknowledged by the landlord on the 19 January 2023. It was however part of the content of the residents complaint dated 14 December 2022, which had not been previously acknowledged or responded to.
The escalated issue of the external bedroom door was added to the stage 2 response almost as an afterthought. Identifying it as an issue mentioned by the complaints team from a previous complaint. In accordance with the Code, a complaint investigation must seek sufficient, reliable information from both parties so that fair and appropriate findings and recommendations can be made. The response stated that it had reviewed the correspondence and found the decision at stage 1 was correct. A “review of the correspondence” does not demonstrate that sufficient reliable information from both parties was sought, and coupled with the fact the information was not correct, it was evident no meaningful review of the complaint had taken place.
The landlords response to the issue of the boundary accepted there were failings, and indicated that, had the landlord been more active in the matter the lengthy process with planning, would not necessarily be taking so long. This was not a true reflection of the findings, as in actual fact the landlord had not acted at all, the ‘protracted process’ with planning had no bearing on the delay, as in 7 months a planning application had yet to be submitted. This was a significant failing; the complaint response should have been transparent about this. It should have apologised, given a tight deadline for when it would submit the application and offered the resident some financial redress. Instead it provided a response that the resident described as “vague” and that did not really give her any information as to when things would progress, which is an assessment this Service would not disagree with.
It was also not appropriate for the stage 2 response, to refer the resident to the corporate complaints policy if they were not satisfied with the response. The Code is very clear that stage 2 responses should contain details of how to escalate the matter to the Housing Ombudsman Service, to avoid any delay.
If the complaint handling policy had been followed correctly, the landlord should have completed 2 complaint investigations and issued two stage 2 responses. It is noted the deviation from the process would not have been helped by the fact that, the landlord does not quote complaint reference numbers on the complaint correspondence and fails to refer to the actual date of the residents complaint. This was a service failure that needs to be addressed, and made investigating this complaint more challenging for this Service.
The purpose of the Code is to enable landlords to resolve complaints raised by their residents quickly and to use the data and learning from complaints to drive service improvements. The landlords complaint process did not successfully resolve either complaint, and while failings were identified the landlord did not demonstrate that it had taken any learning from them. This was further borne out by a continuation of the same failings post the complaints process.
It was evident that only the residents continued persistence in pursuing the landlord with the issue of the faulty door obtained any resolution, and proved the outcome of the complaint investigation was wrong, which was not appropriate. Residents should not have to go to the time and trouble of keep challenging the landlord to obtain access to the full complaints process, and have their complaints properly investigated.
When the matter of the boundary had still not been resolved in June 2023, the landlord apologised to the resident again and offered £500 in compensation. If compensation is offered and accepted it should be paid in a reasonable time. The Ombudsman considers a reasonable time to be within 4 weeks.
On 1 August 2023, post the internal complaint process (ICP), the resident expressed further dissatisfaction in the time it was taking to complete all of the repairs, and continued to request compensation for the impact on her and her son of the faulty door. This led to a further apology from the landlord, which fully accepted that the way the matters had been dealt with was unacceptable. It made the resident an offer of £1000. It was not clear if this was an additional £1000 or whether it was inclusive of the previous offer of £500. It transpired it was inclusive, but the previous offer had not yet been paid which was not reasonable. After further negotiation with the resident, the landlord agreed to her request for a total of £1500.
The Ombudsman recommends a 2-stage approach to internal complaint processes (ICP) to ensure a consistent and speedy conclusion to complaints. Effectively adding a third stage was not in accordance with the landlord’s policy and it only went on to provide a delayed outcome, something the Code seeks to avoid, which was not reasonable. Whilst the Ombudsman welcomes all attempts by landlords to work to resolve disputes with its residents, there is an expectation, (which is laid out in the Code) that a thorough review with the intention to resolve would ultimately be the role of the landlord’s two stage complaint handling process. It was not acceptable that the landlord’s process could not achieve this, which led to the resident being caused further time and trouble to pursue a suitable resolution.
The Ombudsman accepts that the landlord apologised. Its findings and the solutions offered post ICP went some way to meeting this Service’s expectations and guidance for appropriate resolution and redress. However, when looking to determine whether this is ‘reasonable redress’, the Ombudsman must establish what initiated the landlord to reconsider the case and whether it would do so consistently, as well as the redress itself.
It was evident this review came about as a result of ongoing failings by the landlord to deal with the substantive complaint, which did not demonstrate the landlord’s ability to act fairly and consistently in its future handling of complaints. In addition, even though the landlord offered more appropriate redress, it did not negate the fact that the resolutions and redress offered could have been provided sooner, and within the landlord’s internal process. This in conjunction with the landlords failure to demonstrate it had taken any learning from this complaint, it was not considered sufficient to avoid a finding of maladministration.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration in the landlords handling of the residents request for a replacement boundary wall.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration in the landlords handling of the residents request for a new door to the balcony in her sons bedroom.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration in the landlords handling of the residents complaint.

Reasons

The landlord did not follow its policies and procedures in the residents request for a new boundary wall, which raised the residents expectations, and caused excessive and unnecessary delay. It failed to engage in leaseholder consultation in a timely manner, it was late to recognise its property was in a conservation area, with the associated restrictions that entailed. It did not follow through on actions agreed to and failed to consistently communicate with the resident. It eventually carried out repairs 19 months after they were reported, which if due process had been followed could have potentially been completed in its responsive repairs target timescale.
The landlord did not follow its policies and procedures in the residents request for a new balcony door. It was evident the maintenance team did not have a good knowledge of its property, and its records, were not able to assist. This resulted in the residents request being consistently ignored as the landlord had determined the door was internal and therefore not its responsibility. The detriment to the resident was significant, the door did need replacement and her son had lived in a cold, damp room that was difficult to heat for an unacceptable amount of time, while the resident struggled to get the problem acknowledged and addressed.
The landlord did not act in accordance with its complaints policy or the complaint handling code, when handling of the residents complaint. The process was not followed, resulting in stage 1 and 2 complaints not being responded to correctly or in the correct order, it was not clear which response went with which complaint, leading to confusion and misinformation being presented. Investigations were not thorough. Responses were not compliant with the Code, determinations were not clear, action plans and timescales were not evident. Information on how to escalate complaints at all stages was missing. Not all failings were fully acknowledged and recognised as a result no redress was offered to the resident through the process. Redress was offered after the ICP as a result of further delays and failings as no learning or service improvement had been achieved through the process. The impact on the resident of the poor complaint handling process were significant. Necessary repairs were not completed for 19 months, and the time stress, and inconvenience of having to consistently chase the landlord to get any resolution was evident.

Orders and recommendations

The Ombudsman orders that within 4 weeks a representative from the landlords executive management team, apologises to the resident for the service failings identified.
The Ombudsman orders that within 4 weeks in addition to the compensation it has already offered, the landlord pays the sum of £1000 compensation, broken down as follows:
1. £500 for the failings identified in the landlords complaint handling.
2. £500 for the time trouble and inconvenience caused to the resident .
The Ombudsman orders that within 8 weeks the landlord self-assess against the revised Complaint Handling Code to be published in April 2024.
The Ombudsman orders that within 8 weeks a training plan is developed for all relevant staff (from top down) on the revised complaint handling code and the landlords complaint handling policy and processes. A copy of the plan and training materials should be provided to this Service.

Recommendations

In light of the fact the repairs records did not assist staff in identifying the door that had previously been inspected and that the property was in a conservation area, the Ombudsman recommends that the repairs service self-assess against the recommendations in the Ombudsman’s spotlight report on Knowledge and Information Management (KIM), which can be found on our website.