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

Stroud District Council (202212740)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202212740

Stroud District Council

2 November 2023


Our approach

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

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

The complaint

  1. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of major works at the resident’s property.
  2. The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

  1. The resident’s property is one of a number of cottages which was subject to major improvements by the landlord. The resident was informed on 15 March 2021 that works would commence on 1 April 2021 and were due to conclude on 31 March 2023.
  2. Throughout June and July 2022, the resident raised concerns about a number of issues relating to the ongoing works. The landlord responded to the concerns on 14 July 2022. The resident replied on the same day citing a number of reasons she was unhappy with the outcome. The resident chased the landlord on 4 August 2022. The landlord raised these concerns as a formal complaint that day.
  3. The resident raised a number of issues, including but not limited to:
    1. The quality of the works so far completed;
    2. The disruption caused by the works;
    3. Communication issues, including the resident not receiving a schedule of works and the notice given to the resident before visits;
    4. Health and safety concerns, including concerns about scaffolding and debris being left in the resident’s garden;
  4. The landlord issued its stage one response on 17 August 2022. It apologised for the disturbances caused by external works and said it would try not to disturb the resident going forward. It agreed to arrange dates for the completion of internal works in order to minimise disruption. It responded to the reports of debris by acknowledging that its contractor had managed the site poorly and had been instructed to amend its practices. It explained it had carried out a thorough clean-up of the site on 12 July 2022, but acknowledged that the garden still required further clearance.
  5. The resident escalated her complaint on 23 August 2022. She stated that some debris remained in the garden following the inspection. The resident was unhappy with the landlord’s complaint handling and that the landlord had offered to visit her to discuss the complaint at short notice, when the resident would be at work. The resident explained that a key part of her complaint had been that the landlord had been frequently provided information about her working hours and asked to respect them, because the resident worked from home. The resident wanted a ‘rent rebate’ for all residents impacted by the works and compensation for inconvenience.
  6. The landlord issued its stage two response on 8 September 2022. It apologised that “information [the resident] provided on many occasions was not properly recorded”. It acknowledged that the resident had clearly asked for adequate notice of visits, which had not been provided, and that “communication with [the resident and her] neighbours about the works has been poor”. It explained a number of meetings had taken place with the contractors in which the landlord “emphasised [its] dissatisfaction with their work […] and set out its expectations of what is now required”. It stated that it was now reviewing its procedures and protocols for major works, particularly with regard to communication with tenants and monitoring of contractors. It pledged to arrange for compensation for the resident once the works had been completed.
  7. On 11 September 2022, the resident emailed the landlord to state that she was not happy with the landlord’s response. She asked the landlord to reissue its response, citing a number of issues that had not been addressed, such as the debris which remained at the property. On 19 October 2022, this Service asked the landlord to reissue its stage 2 response, for the same reasons. The landlord reissued its stage 2 response on 2 November 2022.
  8. On 27 October 2022, the resident raised a new complaint. This involved some issues which do not relate to this investigation, as well as repeating some issues which do. The landlord issued a stage 1 response on 16 November 2022 and a stage 2 on 6 December 2022, following the resident’s escalation request. The Ombudsman has considered all of the landlord’s complaint responses as part of this investigation.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

  1. The Ombudsman understands that the resident brought a number of issues to the landlord’s attention in the time period considered by this investigation. The Ombudsman has considered each of these, alongside the actions taken by the landlord, to build a picture of the landlord’s overall handling of the major works project. However, only events which have been deemed to be the most pertinent to the outcome of this investigation are highlighted in this report.

The landlord’s handling of major works at the resident’s property

  1. A key part of the resident’s concerns were about the impact the works were having on her ability to work from home. Section 5.2 of the landlord’s repairs policy states that for cyclical or planned works, the “contractor undertaking the work will arrange any appointments with the tenant(s) who will be given at least two weeks notice prior to a contractor carrying out the work.” The evidence shows that throughout the period in question, there were multiple instances where this requirement was not met by the landlord’s contractors.
  2. The resident asked on 16 June 2022 for the landlord to provide a schedule of works so that she could make alternative arrangements for work in advance; she required privacy and relative quiet. If this was not possible, she needed time to make arrangements to work elsewhere. The resident said on 6 July 2022 that she had experienced repeated interruptions by contractors, including knocks on the door, and the requesting of access to power outlets. Although each time the resident had asked not to be further disturbed, this had not been respected. The resident had explained that she worked four days a week, and that she could not be expected to be available during those times at such short notice. She was otherwise happy to allow the works to continue on the basis that she not be disturbed during working hours, and that she be given adequate notice of any works which would create a noise disturbance.
  3. The evidence shows that the resident had often explained to the landlord that the major works project, which was due to last two years, had caused disruptions to her personal and working life. The landlord explained on 14 July 2022 that it could not provide the resident with a schedule of works, but would prefer to arrange a programme in consultation with the resident. In the landlord’s stage one response of 17 August 2022, it apologised for the disturbances the resident had experienced, and explained that “going forward, we will endeavour not to disturb you for the external works that remain outstanding to your home. [A senior staff member] will agree and arrange dates with you for the completion of the internal works required to your home.” The evidence shows that the landlord did attempt to arrange a meeting with the resident, but suggested times when the resident had already explained that she was unavailable, with very little notice. Although it did meet with the resident on 17 August 2022, when it “listed all outstanding works both internally and externally”, there is no evidence that a schedule was provided to the resident or a programme agreed.
  4. In the landlord’s stage two response of 8 September 2022, it went on to say that “you have regularly advised both [the contractors] and [the landlord] of the hours you work, the fact that you work from home and the fact that your work is confidential so you cannot have tradespeople overhearing you while you are at work. Despite this you have often not been given the promised notice of access required or notice of noisy work so that you could arrange to work from an office. This is unacceptable and communication with you and your neighbours about the works has been poor”. It added that it agreed “information [the resident] provided on many occasions was not properly recorded”. Despite this acknowledgement, the evidence shows that the landlord did not update its records detailing the resident’s availability until 31 October 2022.
  5. The landlord also advised in its stage two response that it had updated its policies and procedures in relation to how it communicated with residents over major works. There is no evidence to support that it did this. If the landlord did update its policies, the evidence suggests that this may have been ineffective. For example, on 14 February 2023, the landlord wrote to the resident explaining that the works which had been due to take place on 7 and 8 February 2023, which the landlord had previously warned would be “noisy and disruptive”, needed to be reattended. It was therefore intending to return the following day. The resident was frustrated that she had been given less than 24 hours notice, despite the previous assurances the landlord had given to improve its communication with the resident. The resident explained that she was unable to accommodate the works as she did not have enough time to make alternative arrangements as previously advised. The contractors nevertheless arrived at the property and the resident was obliged to ask them to leave. This incident suggests that the actions the landlord detailed in its response to the formal complaint were not adhered to or did not resolve the problem.
  6. The resident was also concerned throughout this period about a perceived risk caused by the conduct of the contractors. The resident regularly reported debris being left on the property, particularly in her garden, which she perceived as a risk due to the presence of nails and sharp fragments of rooftile. When the resident reported this on 16 June 2022, the landlord responded the next day explaining that the contractors would clear up the debris “by the end of next week”. When the resident expressed dissatisfaction with this timescale, the landlord responded promptly by moving the date of the clean-up forward to 18 June 2022. However, in the evening of 18 June 2022 following the landlord’s visit, the resident sent photographs to the landlord of a number of nails and other deposits of construction waste remaining on the property. She explained that this posed a risk to a young child who regularly visited the property and played in the garden. The landlord did not respond to this email, or to the resident’s chaser email on 6 July 2022.
  7. On 14 July 2022, the landlord sent a letter to the resident responding to a number of concerns the resident had raised. In this, the landlord explained that “no debris should be allowed to fall and remain outside the boundary of the scaffold.” It explained that it had given “instructions to the Contractor [which] include stopping the debris being dropped from the scaffold as a matter of course to the area surrounding, effective and immediate clearance where it has happened and thorough checks and clearance daily.” Despite these assurances, the resident again reported metal debris left on the property on 10 August 2022 and reminded the landlord that debris remained on the garden. Internal emails show that the landlord attended on 17 August 2022 and confirmed the removal of further debris. It explained that it had instructed the contractor to employ metal detectors to ensure a thorough clean-up, though there is no evidence that the contractor acted upon these instructions.
  8. The resident again claimed that the steps the landlord had taken were ineffective, reporting further debris on 23 August 2022. The landlord reattended on 30 August 2022 to “search for remaining debris”. The resident told this service that debris remained present in the garden as recently as 19 April 2023.
  9. The resident expressed concerns about the safety of the scaffolding erected at her property throughout much of 2022. The resident cited the presence of exposed bolts and unfinished “skirting”. The landlord agreed that there was evidence to support the resident’s concerns on 14 July 2022, stating that the contractor would be instructed to “make further efforts to replace bolts caps and better secure protection”. The landlord took a number of additional steps, including making provision to increase monitoring of the contractor and ensuring that the contractor itself had “a full-time supervisory presence on site from 18 July 2022”. However, there is no evidence to suggest that the landlord had investigated or responded to these concerns prior to a site inspection by the local authority’s Health & Safety executive on 12 July 2022. The resident explained to the landlord on 11 September 2022 that she had contacted this external body after “weeks of pleading” for the scaffold to be made safe. This serves as an example of the additional time and trouble the resident went to throughout this period to ensure her concerns were properly considered and addressed.
  10. In conclusion, the evidence available demonstrates that the major works caused extended and significant disruption to the resident’s life, above that which was necessary to complete the required works. The resident made reasonable requests to reduce this impact, such as to be given a schedule of works, which the landlord failed to provide. The resident made requests to be given adequate notice of appointments in line with the landlord’s own policies and procedures, which the landlord failed to comply with. Although the landlord took a number of steps to address the resident’s concerns and reduce the impact the works were having, it was ultimately unable to do so effectively. The landlord acknowledged that its communication with the resident and that of its contractors “had been poor”, but failed to learn from these shortcomings. Although there were a number of positive actions which the landlord took throughout this period which may not be reflected in this report, the impact of the failings highlighted constitute failings in the landlord’s handling of the planned major works.
  11. On 11 August 2023, the resident reported to this service that works had stopped, leaving her with “many unfinished jobs, many of which are dangerous”. She said that the landlord had stopped responding to her. The resident reported high levels of distress and “feelings of powerlessness”. This Service requested an update from the landlord. This Service was obliged to chase the landlord frequently throughout August, September and October 2023. On 20 October 2023, the landlord told this Service that the major works project “had not progressed” and “was due to restart in January 2024”. Residents would be informed on 10 November 2023. This indicates that the communication issues that were at the heart of the resident’s formal complaint remain ongoing. Although the landlord told this Service that it was “aware that communication is very important at this site due to the length of time it has taken to progress the works”, it has not satisfactorily demonstrated that it had ‘learned from outcomes’.
  12. It is unclear from the evidence how many times the landlord attended the property without following its responsibilities under the repairs policy. However, the Ombudsman is satisfied that the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident was significant, repeated and long-lasting. There is no evidence that the landlord considered a decant for the resident as a means to alleviate the impact on her. There is also the significantly aggravating factor that this Service has seen no evidence from the time of the resident’s first report that the garden has, at any point, been entirely free from debris caused by the works. The Ombudsman acknowledges that the landlord attended the debris on a number of occasions, however it was ultimately unable to satisfy this investigation that it left the garden in a condition where it was able to be used as intended. The evidence also shows that the resident had to go to significant time and trouble over a long period in order to have her concerns addressed, only for the same failings to later reoccur. The landlord explained that it would learn from these failings, however there is no evidence that any effective learning has since taken place.
  13. In its stage 2 response, the landlord stated, “I accept that the disruption and inconvenience you have experienced is greater than usual, and that some discretionary compensation would be appropriate. Once the works…have been finished, I will arrange for compensation for you…” It was not until 15 September 2023, in response to a number of requests from this Service, that the landlord offered £1,000 compensation for failings up until the date of the stage 2 response. This was made up of £800 for distress and inconvenience caused by delays and a further £200 for distress and inconvenience caused by the landlord’s communication. However, although the resident was unhappy with the delays, delays did not form part of the resident’s complaint. The resident sought a resolution from this Service in relation to the wider impact and disruption the landlord’s handling of the major works had on the resident, and the time and trouble gone to in order to persuade the landlord to minimise this disruption. The landlord pledged at stage 2 to “offer compensation for disruption and inconvenience”, but has yet to do so. Orders are therefore made below to ‘put things right’. While it was appropriate for the landlord to offer compensation as a way to ‘put things right’ for the resident, this was only done after the conclusion of the internal complaints procedure, after prompting by this Service.
  14. The landlord should have taken action to ‘put things right’ as part of its own handling of the formal complaint. Due to the impact the failings identified above have had on the resident, and as the landlord has not fully ‘put things right’ or ‘learned from outcomes’ a finding of severe maladministration is made, with orders for additional compensation. The Ombudsman’s remedies guidance states that where there has been severe maladministration which has had a significant impact on the resident over a long period of time, financial redress of at least £1,000 is appropriate.

Complaint Handling

  1. The landlord’s complaints policy defines a complaint as “a clear expression of dissatisfaction, however made”. The evidence shows that the resident made multiple expressions of dissatisfaction in June and July of 2022, which were not raised through the formal complaints process until 4 August 2022, after the resident chased the landlord. Section 6.6 of the landlord’s repairs policy states that any “dissatisfaction with the quality of any works carried out to their home or the attitude/performance of the contractor […] will be referred to the Relevant Officer”. On balance, it is the Ombudsman’s view that the landlord’s decision to follow this policy, rather than to raise a formal complaint, was the most appropriate and expeditious way of dealing with the resident’s concerns prior to 14 July 2022. However, the resident’s response to the relevant officer’s correspondence on that date clearly warranted formal escalation at that point; internal emails of 4 August 2022 show that a formal complaint had not been raised. Ultimately, this delay had no bearing on the outcome of this investigation, however recommendations are made below to ensure that concerns which require a formal response are not missed in future.
  2. In the landlord’s stage two response of 8 September 2022, the landlord stated that it accepted that “the disruption and inconvenience [the resident] experienced is greater than usual, and that some discretionary compensation would be appropriate. Once the works to [the properties] have been finished, [the landlord] will arrange for compensation for [the resident] and will assess whether [the resident’s] neighbours should also be considered”. The Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code) states that “a complaint response must be sent to the resident when the answer to the complaint is known, not when the outstanding actions required to address the issue, are completed”. The landlord should therefore have calculated and made an offer of compensation there and then, to ‘put right’ the failings it had acknowledged until that point. It would then have been able to make a further offer at a later stage if it felt it was necessary to do so. On 25 November 2022, prior to the landlord’s final stage 2 response, the resident stated that she had “been through hell” and that the landlord “keeps referring to an unnamed amount of compensation at some unnamed point in the future for all the disruption and distress”. The stage 2 response of 6 December 2022 still did not contain an offer of compensation which had been promised. The landlord did not offer the compensation until 15 September 2023, after being prompted to do so by this Service. The evidence shows that the resident had gone to significant time and trouble and experienced frustration trying to get the landlord to adhere to the commitments it made in its stage 2 response. Orders are made below.
  3. The Code also states that the landlord should respond to all elements of a complaint. This Service is satisfied that the landlord’s complaint responses were generally thorough and sought to address all of the resident’s concerns, despite this service instructing the landlord to reissue its stage two response on 19 October 2022. However, as the resident often pointed out, elements were sometimes missed, including concerns about asbestos which ought to have been considered and responded to at the time. In the resident’s second escalation request, on 25 November 2022, the resident stated that the landlord was “only responding to parts of complaints and ignoring the bits that make [it] liable”. The resident cited her scaffolding concerns as an example of an element she felt had not been fully responded to. The landlord did not include the scaffolding concerns in its stage 2 response of 6 December 2022. Although the landlord offered some appropriate resolutions, it was often unable to adhere to all of them. In conclusion, there was maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was severe maladministration in the landlord’s handling of major works at the resident’s property.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Orders

  1. Within four weeks of the date of this determination, the landlord must:
  2. Pay the resident a total of £1,900 compensation, made up of:
    1. The £1000 the landlord offered on 15 September 2023 (this can be deducted from the total if it has already been paid);
    2. £400 for the disruption and inconvenience caused to the resident by the landlord’s handling of the major works;
    3. £300 for the time and trouble the resident went to, in order to have her concerns addressed;
    4. £200 for failures in complaint handling.
  3. Attend the resident’s property to clear the exterior of all debris from the works. The landlord should provide evidence to the Ombudsman when it has done this.
  4. To provide the resident with a written apology from the Chief Executive for her experience throughout the planned major works project.

Recommendations

  1. To take any additional steps it may feel appropriate to ensure that all staff are equipped to be able to identify complaints and understand how to formally raise them when they arise.