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

Tower Hamlets Homes (202212678)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202212678

Tower Hamlets Homes

26 April 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

  1. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of repairs to the resident’s windows.

Background

  1. The resident is a secure tenant of the landlord, she resides in a 2 bedroom, 2nd floor flat.
  2. On 22 December 2021, the resident reported that multiple windows in the property required attention as they were letting in a draught.
  3. The landlord attended on 12 January 2022, during this visit the resident says she was informed that most of her windows needed work as they were in ‘bad condition’. She said that photographs were taken, and she was told a follow on job would be raised.
  4. After the resident chased the landlord, it attended again on 16 February 2022 and carried out a repair to some, but not all of the windows. The resident was unhappy with the standard of the repair and reported this to the landlord on 23 February 2022.
  5. The resident chased the landlord several times throughout February – March. She said that silicone had been poorly applied and was already beginning to crack. She said that the draught was impacting her son’s asthma and that she could not afford to keep the heating on all of the time. On 19 March 2022 she was told that she would receive an update within 5 business days, but this did not happen.
  6. On 7 April 2022 the resident raised a complaint with the landlord due to the delays and lack of communication, she said that she had been waiting for an update for over 3 weeks. In resolution of her complaint, she wanted the landlord to re-attend.
  7. The landlord provided its stage 1 response on 25 April 2022. It apologised for the poor service and acknowledged the delay that this had caused. It said that it would re-attend on 6 May 2022 and that a dedicated member of staff would oversee the completion of the repair.
  8. On 12 May 2022, the resident requested an escalation of her complaint as the landlord did not attend as promised on 6 May 2022. She had waited in all day and was only notified of the cancellation at 3pm, she was also unhappy that the next available appointment was 3 weeks later.
  9. Within its stage 2 response on 6 June 2022 the landlord confirmed that all works were completed on 27 May 2022. It apologised and offered £20 compensation for the delays.
  10. Following the complaint being brought to this Service the landlord has since informed us that it has carried out a case review and intends to offer the resident £300 compensation. It is not clear if this has been communicated to the resident.

Assessment and findings

  1. The landlord’s repairs policy states that routine repairs will be carried out within 20 working days, however, in most cases, the repair will be carried out well in advance of this. Furthermore, the tenancy agreement says that the landlord is responsible for keeping the exterior and the structure of the property in repair.
  2. The landlord first attended on 12 January 2022, within the timeframe set out in its policy. The evidence shows that there is a discrepancy as to what happened during this initial visit, the job notes say that the operative overhauled the bathroom window, however, the resident reports that she was told the windows would need to be replaced. Although we are unable to establish the specifics it is not disputed that a follow on job was required.
  3. Following this initial visit, the landlord failed to schedule in the follow on repair, resulting in the resident having to chase. This was subsequently arranged for 16 February 2022, 5 weeks later, exceeding the commitment made by the landlord within its repairs policy.
  4. On 23 February 2022, the resident informed the landlord that she was unhappy with the standard of the repairs carried out the week before. The evidence shows that the landlord failed to acknowledge or act on this until the resident contacted it again on 16 March 2022. It would have been appropriate for the landlord to take proactive steps in response as soon as it was made aware of the resident’s dissatisfaction.
  5. Despite being told she would receive an update by 25 March 2022 this did not materialise, as a result the resident expended more time and trouble chasing the landlord and eventually raising a complaint. Within its stage 1 response the landlord did apologise for the poor standard of repair and acknowledged the delay. It took steps to resolve the substantive issues by arranging to re-attend. However, it failed to appropriately acknowledge the impact upon the resident. The resident had informed the landlord that the draught was affecting her son’s health and that she could not afford to continuously heat her home. It would have been appropriate for the landlord to acknowledge these factors within its response.
  6. The evidence shows that this poor service continued with the last minute cancellation of the appointment on 6 May 2022. This indicates that it did not learn sufficient lessons and similar failures continued to impact the resident.
  7. In summary, it took the landlord 107 working days to carry out an effective repair. The landlord’s offer of £20 compensation within its stage 2 response was not proportionate to the unreasonable delay and the detriment caused to the resident, in addition the landlord did not demonstrate appropriate learning. The landlord’s more recent actions cannot be considered reasonable redress as they took place after the end of its complaint process. However, the revised financial offer of £300 is reasonable to the failures identified within this report.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure by the landlord in respect of its handling of repairs to the resident’s windows.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

  1. Within four weeks of the date of this report, the landlord must:
    1. Pay the resident £300 it has offered in recognition of the unreasonable delays and inconvenience caused by its handling of the window repairs, if it has not already done so.
    2. Provide to the resident a written apology for its failures and delays in its handling of the repair. Its letter should also acknowledge the distress and inconvenience this caused.

Recommendation

  1. It is recommended that the landlord reviews its complaint handling procedure to ensure that any offers of compensation are made within its internal complaints process. The purpose of reasonable redress is to encourage and acknowledge earlier resolution of complaints.