Tower Hamlets Homes (202222170)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202222170

Tower Hamlets Homes

7 February 2024

Our approach

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

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

The complaint

The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of:
1. Repairs in the property.
2. The resident’s concerns about staff conduct.

Background and summary of events

Background

At the time of the complaint, the resident was in the process of pursuing a Right To Buy (RTB) application of the 4th floor 1 bedroom flat that she occupied. She had been a tenant at the property since at least March 2012.
The Right to Manage Regulations 2012 lets tenants and leaseholders take over certain management responsibilities from their landlord; in this case there is a Tenant Management Organisation (TMO) which operates as a co-operative and is responsible for repairs, maintenance and service provision. However, the landlord retains ultimate responsibility for the TMO.
For the purposes of this case both the TMO and landlord are referred to in this report. However the determination will be addressed to the landlord who has ultimate responsibility for the TMO.

Scope of investigation

The Ombudsman does not consider or comment on how a landlord should deal with identified service failings by the individual members of staff involved, in terms of any disciplinary proceedings. This is in accordance with paragraph 42(h) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, which states that this Service will not consider complaints which concern terms of employment or other personnel issues. The Ombudsman, when investigating a complaint about a member of the landlord staff, will consider the response of the landlord as a whole, and will only comment on the actions of individuals only in so far as they are acting on behalf of the landlord. Therefore, if the actions of an individual member of staff give rise to a failure in service, the Ombudsman’s determination and any associated orders and recommendations would be made against the landlord rather than the individual.

Summary of events

According to the repairs history log, between 19 November 2020 and 7 May 2021 various repairs works were completed at the resident’s property which included:
1. Renewing the sealant on the bath, basin and joints between worktops.
2. Removing pipe duct casing for client inspection, refixing and making good all decorations to match existing.
3. Overhaul the PVCu window in the bathroom.
All works were routine repairs and completed within 20 working days of being reported.
The resident completed a Notice Claiming the Right to Buy (RTB1 form) and submitted the application on 7 May 2021. The landlord confirmed receipt of the RTB application on 29 June 2021 and wrote to the resident explaining the next steps of the process.
The resident emailed the TMO on 15 February 2022 to ask if any drilling had been done outside her kitchen as the wall had been damaged. She explained that she was in the process of purchasing the property and was unhappy with the damaged that had occurred.
The repairs history log showed that on 10 March 2022 the TMO carried out a client inspection. It is not clear to this Service, from the information provided what was inspected.
The resident contacted the TMO again on 12 April 2022 for a response to her question regarding the drilling outside the property. She explained that as well as the damage to the wall, there were also cracks on the ceiling. She asked the TMO to investigate so that she could discuss with her solicitor.
On 23 May 2022, following a telephone conversation with the resident, the TMO emailed her to request access to the property to carry out an inspection and investigate the resident’s concerns. The email stated that the TMO had looked at the photo the resident sent showing plasterwork falling away from what appeared to be redundant pipework in the kitchen but that it had no record of having carried out work in that area and would like the opportunity to look at it. The TMO stated that its initial thought was that it could fill the hole and smooth the plasterwork but the resident would be responsible for painting it.
In response the resident explained that she had been notified of work in the communal area and that following the works she returned home to find cracks on her ceiling and wall. She explained that she had contacted the TMO at that time but did not receive a response. The following day the TMO told the resident that an officer would visit the property on 25 May 2022.
The repairs log showed 2 routine repairs for 6 June 2022. The first was to renew a shower kit and remove any waste and debris and according to the record, the job was completed on 1 July 2022. The second was in relation to a damaged step at the property, which needed to be made good. However, this work was not completed.
Between 6 and 7 June 2022 there was an email exchange between the resident and the TMO in which the resident queried the outstanding repairs. She explained that further to the TMO visit on 25 May 2022 she wanted an update on the action that was being taken. The TMO responded that a works order would be raised to renew the step in concrete at the front of the property. It explained that the intrusion into the wall was caused when a new metal loft ladder was installed by the landlord, as part of a program of works over a year before. The TMO added that it had passed its concerns about this onto the landlord and would update her when it received a response. The resident responded and explained that she had contacted the TMO earlier in the year about work that had been completed in the communal area and the resulting damage inside her property and that she had contacted the TMO about it at the time. She further explained that an officer had visited the property and that she had made them aware of the different repairs that were needed. She added that the visiting officer had also noted some repairs. The resident asked for confirmation of when the work would be done.
On 7 June 2022 the TMO asked the resident to confirm if she had a RTB application. The resident stated that she did and that she was concerned about the outstanding repairs.
The same day, the TMO contacted the landlord for guidance on the responsibility of the TMO in relation to repairs and maintenance where the resident has made a RTB application. The landlord responded on 21 June 2022 and explained that the repairs obligations in relation to properties where the resident has made a RTB application was not a landlord policy but was a RTB directive. It further explained that once a resident submitted a RTB application, it would automatically flag on the landlord’s repairs system and this information would be passed to the TMO, where appropriate. The landlord added that it would inform the TMO that only health and safety and emergency repairs should be completed at the property. It explained that most non-essential repairs would stop once the resident submitted a RTB application and the state of repair of the property would be reflected in its valuation.
There was an email exchange between the resident and the TMO on 8 July 2022 in which the resident contacted the TMO to complain about a conversation she had had with the TMO earlier that day. She explained that she had called to follow up on repairs as previously advised to do, and that despite her efforts for an update, the TMO had ignored her. She stated that the repair to the ceiling was still outstanding and neither the TMO or the contractor was taking responsibility for the repair. The TMO responded the same day and apologised. It stated that as explained in the telephone call the resident had an active RTB application and consequently was not eligible for repairs. It suggested that she contact the RTB team or review the Government guidelines on the subject. The resident responded that she wanted the outstanding repairs resolved and that her RTB was subject to this happening. She added that the officer that visited the property made a note of additional repair concerns. This Service has not seen a copy of those notes. The TMO responded on 13 July 2022 explaining that it had reviewed the earlier decision, and that it had discussed the matter internally and agreed that it was likely that the disturbance from the drilling into the resident’s wall had caused the issue with the ceiling. The TMO admitted that it was wrong to assume that the issues were unconnected and that it would arrange for a contractor to make good on the ceiling and report back on the other areas mentioned.
The resident made a formal complaint about the TMO to the landlord on 12 July 2022. She explained the recent interaction with the TMO and that the she felt they had been rude and unnecessarily hostile. She added that the TMO had ignored her attempt to contact them. The resident further explained the issues regarding the damaged ceiling and that she had been told that the ceiling would not be repaired because she had an active RTB application. The resident listed other repairs that were outstanding in the property, which included:
1. Faulty extractor fan in the bathroom
2. Faulty extractor fan in the kitchen
3. Cracked flooring outside the property.
The resident reiterated that she felt the TMO was unprofessional, she wanted the repairs completed and an apology from the TMO.
The landlord passed the complaint to the TMO on 14 July 2022 and advised the resident to expect a response by 9 August 2022.
Following on from the email exchange between the resident and the TMO, on 21 July 2022 the TMO sent a further email explaining that the offer to revisit the repairs had been withdrawn and they would be revisited once the complaint had been concluded. In addition it asked the resident to only make contact in writing in order to avoid any miscommunication. It added that given the resident’s profession, her comments were disappointing. The resident responded that same day expressing her dissatisfaction with the approach and the decision to retract the offer to complete the repairs. She added that she felt that it was unfair of the TMO to request all contact in writing.
On 29 July 2022 the TMO explained to the landlord that it would need additional time to respond to the complaint. In addition it asked the landlord for the following information:
1. When was the RTB application made?
2. Was the resident advised about qualifying repairs following her application?
3. Why did the landlord refer the resident to the TMO to resolve the damage to the ceiling? The damage occurred as a result of works carried out by a contractor under instruction from the landlord.
An internal landlord note stated that all internal works were carried out by the TMO and that the landlord managed communal repairs. Nevertheless the landlord checked its system and could not find a works order in relation to repairs in the kitchen.
The TMO advised the resident on 3 August 2022 that it would need additional time to respond to the complaint but that she should expect a response by 10 August 2022.
On 9 August 2022 the landlord responded to the TMOs request for information. It explained that:
1. It received the resident’s RTB application on 12 May 2021 and following on from this a valuation of the property was carried out, which took into account the state of repair. It stated that there were no defects considered or reflected in the property valuation but the resident had reported the following:
  1. Cracks and damp throughout the property.
  2. Leaks in the bathroom and kitchen.
  3. Broken window in the bathroom.
  4. Broken doors throughout the property.
2. Once it received the RTB application most non-essential repairs would stop and only health and safety and emergency repairs would be completed. However, if a non-essential repair had been agreed prior to the submission of the RTB application it would be at the discretion of the landlord or TMO to fulfil this promise, but there was no obligation to do so. If the non-essential works had started it would be reasonable to complete them.
3. In relation to the damaged ceiling it would be appropriate to consider this health and safety related works. It would be prudent to carry out an inspection to assess if there were any health and safety or emergency repairs needed.
The TMO responded to the resident’s stage 1 complaint on 10 August 2022. It explained that:
1. It had spoken with the member of staff mentioned in the resident’s complaint, who accepted that the telephone conversation was not up to the expected standards and apologised to the resident for the distress it caused
2. The member of staff provided a full explanation of the telephone conversation and it was not his intention to insinuate that the resident had lied about information that had been given.
3. On occasion the resident was difficult to communicate with.
4. It had asked the landlord to provide information regarding qualifying repairs. The landlord responded that there had been no communication between itself and its contractor in relation to the repair of the kitchen ceiling.
5. It agreed that the intrusion through the wall was unfortunate and believed that the party responsible for this was likely to blame for the issue with the kitchen ceiling, and that where it is proved they are at fault they should return to repair it.
6. It explained how it was funded and that it needed to be mindful of its expenditure and consequently it was correct to question its responsibility to carry out a repair on a property with an active RTB application.
7. It added that the landlord had failed to notify the TMO of the RTB application and to that end the TMO had completed repairs on:
  1. 4 June 2021.
  2. 27 September 2021.
  3. 10 March 2022.
  4. 1 July 2022.
  5. 4 July 2022.
8. As a gesture of goodwill the TMO would arrange to resolve the kitchen ceiling issues if it could not secure the timely return of the parties who caused the original damage.
The landlord apologised and the concluded that it partially upheld the resident’s complaint, accepting that the telephone call was not of the expected standard. It added that in order to avoid any miscommunication future correspondence should be via email, unless it was an emergency.
The resident contacted the landlord on 30 August 2022 explaining that she was not happy with the stage 1 response and wanted it escalated.
An internal email dated 12 September 2022 questioned how the complaint reached stage 2 given that it had been rejected at stage 1. In an email to the TMO on 14 September 2022 the landlord asked about the delay in responding to the stage 1 complaint.
On the same day, the resident set out why she was not satisfied with the stage 1 response and the outcome she wanted. She explained:
1. She did not feel that the stage 1 investigation was carried out fairly and did not feel that all the information had been considered prior to responding. She explained that the TMO had agreed to repair the ceiling and the other repairs, but she was subsequently told that she should do those repairs herself.
2. She was unhappy that the TMO suggested that she made a complaint because it had changed its decision to carry out the repair and reiterated that the complaint was about the TMOs manner on the telephone.
3. She did not feel it was appropriate to mention her profession, as it was irrelevant and it was unfair to suggest that she had enforced any authority because of her profession.
4. She was shocked that some members of the TMO found her difficult to communicate with as she believed they had a good relationship.
The landlord acknowledged the complaint on the same day and sent an email to the TMO on 21 September 2022 asking it to comment on the escalated complaint. On 23 September 2022 the landlord contacted the resident to advise that it would take an additional 14 days to provide a response to the complaint.
On 27 September 2022 the TMO responded to the landlord with its understanding of the complaint and subsequent escalation. It provided an explanation of how it had addressed the complaint and commented on each point raised in the resident’s escalation and included its understanding of how the damage to the ceiling had occurred.
The landlord responded to the resident’s stage 2 response in a letter dated 4 October 2022. It confirmed that a senior member of the landlord staff had reviewed the complaint and in doing so had considered all of the correspondence and documentation relating to the resident’s complaint. It added that in order to respond the points raised by the resident it had liaised with the TMO. The landlord set out its findings as follows:
1. A senior member of the TMO investigated the complaint at stage 1 and the TMO partially upheld the complaint on the basis that it agreed with the resident that the telephone conversation that preceded the complaint was not of a standard that the TMO would expect.
2. The TMO initially offered to complete the repair then subsequently withdrew it as the resident was not entitled to it. It explained that the TMO believed that the damage to the wall and subsequently the ceiling was caused by landlord contractors who carried out a program of works months before the issue was reported. According to the TMO the contractor returned to repair the ceiling, which it believed had been disturbed by drilling but did not paint it as the internal decoration was the resident’s responsibility and it understood that the TMO had attempted to explain this to her.
3. It apologised if the resident felt that the TMO had a personal vendetta against her and assured her that it had liaised with the TMO and was satisfied that there was no vendetta.
4. The resident had previously mentioned her profession to the TMO in emails.
5. The TMO felt that certain members of its team could assist her better than others.
It apologised to the resident for any inconvenience that the issues may have caused.

Post internal complaint process

The resident completed her RTB on 22 August 2022.
On 24 July 2023 the landlord explained that following the response to the stage 1 complaint it inspected the property and found 2 small holes on the bathroom and kitchen wall and minor cracks on the ceiling and provided this Service with photographs of the affected areas. It stated that it offered to fill the holes but the resident asked for the whole of the wall and ceiling to be done.

Assessment and findings

Landlord’s policies and obligations

The landlord states that it’s TMOs are closely regulated and have their own legal contract, known as a Management Agreement, which outlines the services the TMO is responsible for. The Management Agreement gives the landlord the powers to monitor the TMO and act when it is not performing. The landlord is ultimately responsible for the TMO.
The Management Agreement between the TMO and the landlord sets out how the TMO will manage certain functions, including repairs and maintenance, of estate management in respect of the properties within its area.
It explains that the TMO will exercise management functions in respect of responsive and planned maintenance repairs that are practicable for the TMO to complete. The agreement provides a list of examples of the types of repairs and includes, but is not limited to:
1. Basic plumbing, including sinks, baths basins.
2. Electrical services, including internal wiring.
3. Internal fixtures and fittings, including landlord applied wall surfaces not essential to the structural integrity of the building in dwellings and communal areas.
4. External areas, including rainwater systems.
The agreement states that all structural and planned maintenance is the responsibility of the landlord, and the repairs policy states that tenants are responsible for carrying out internal decoration including filling small surface cracks.
The landlord classifies repairs as either emergency or routine. It aims to complete emergency repairs within 24 hours and routine repairs within 20 working days. Repairs to plasterwork is included in the landlord’s policy as a routine repair.
In respect of complaints, the agreement states that the complaint will be investigated in accordance with the management complaints policy, which explains that there is a 2 stage complaints process. The TMO will investigate the complaint at stage 1 and provide a response within 20 working days. The landlord will deal with stage 2 complaints and will aim to respond within 20 working days.
Section 4.1 of the landlord’s compensation and refund guidance allows for discretionary compensation to be paid where there a complaint has been substantiated and where there is no practical action which would provide a full and appropriate remedy.
The TMO employee handbook sets out its expectations of its employees conduct at work. Amongst the list of its expectations, it includes that employees must ‘be courteous, helpful and polite to all those with whom you have contact.’
The Governments guidance on RTB explains that once a RTB application has been submitted there may be certain repairs and maintenance work that the landlord will not need to carry out anymore, as the value is based on the condition of the property at the date of application. The landlord advised this Service that as part of its RTB process it notified tenants in an interview that non-emergency works would not be carried out by the landlord but all emergency works such loss of heating, major leaks would be.

The landlord’s handling of repairs in the property

The Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles are:
1. Be fair
2. Put things right
3. Learn from outcomes.
This Service will apply these principles when considering whether any redress is appropriate and proportionate for any maladministration or service failure identified.
Evidence showed that the resident emailed the TMO on 15 February 2022 to ask if works had been done outside her property as there appeared to be internal damage. The TMO failed to respond to her email and she sent another email on 12 April 2022. The TMO contacted the resident on 23 May 2022 and offered to visit the property to inspect the damage. The TMO suggested that it could fill the hole and smooth the plasterwork but the resident would be responsible for the painting.
It was not acceptable that the TMO failed to respond to the resident query regarding the cracks in the wall when she first made contact on 15 February 2022. The resident was unnecessarily inconvenienced and had to chase the TMO for a response, and it was unreasonable that the resident waited over 3 months for a response to her query. However, when the TMO did respond it offered to fill the holes and smooth the plaster. This was a reasonable response.
Following on from this, the TMO visited the property on 25 May 2022. We have not seen a copy of notes from that TMO visit, however the visit is not disputed. The evidence showed that following a request from the resident on 6 June 2022 for an update of when repairs would be completed, a job was added to the repairs log to renew the shower kit. It was classed as a routine repair and completed on 1 July 2022, within the 20 working day timescale.
The TMO only became aware of the residents RTB application on 15 February 2022, which was approximately 9 Months after she had submitted it. During this time evidence showed that the TMO had completed at least 3 repairs, all within the prescribed timescale, which the resident was not technically entitled to. The TMO demonstrated that it complied with its repairs policy and the issue only became contentious when the TMO became aware of the resident’s RTB status and the TMOs subsequent refusal to complete the repair to the wall.
The landlord has explained that the resident would have been made aware, at her RTB interviews, that non-essential repairs would stop following the RTB application. It was therefore reasonable for the TMO to refuse to carry out a routine repair. However, in an email to the TMO on 9 August 2022, the landlord suggested to the TMO that if the issue with the ceiling represented a health and safety concern, it should take steps to resolve it.
Following on from this, in its stage 1 response the TMO stated it would arrange to resolve the kitchen ceiling issue. This was a reasonable response. While the repairs policy states that residents are responsible for internal decoration, given it had been accepted that the damage occurred during landlord approved works it was appropriate that the TMO offered to repair the kitchen ceiling. This demonstrated that it was willing to find a resolution.
Evidence showed that following the escalation of the complaint by the resident, internally the landlord was questioning the status of the complaint, in particular with regard to the outcome at stage 1. The confusion with regard the status of the stage 1 complaint demonstrated that it was unclear of the outcome at this stage of the complaints process. The landlord has explained to this Service that it is ultimately responsible for the TMO. To that end it must be able to demonstrate that it has a robust process in place for communicating the outcome of complaints, so that it can investigate when things go wrong. The Complaint Handling code is clear that a full record should be kept of the complaint, any review and the outcomes at each stage.
The landlord has explained to us, that following on from the stage 1 response it attended the property to investigate the repairs. It maintains that it offered to repair the affected areas in the bathroom and kitchen but the resident wanted the whole of the wall done. It was reasonable for the landlord to offer to carry out the repair of just the affected areas. Given that there was no damage to the rest of the wall or ceiling it would not have been best use of the landlord’s resources to fully redecorate all of the walls. This Service finds reasonable redress in the landlords handling of repairs in the property.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns about staff conduct

The resident explained that she was unhappy with the way she had been treated by certain members of the TMO. As set out in paragraph 5 of this report when investigating a complaint about a member of the landlord staff, we will consider the response of the landlord as a whole and will only comment on the actions of individuals only in so far as they are acting on behalf of the landlord.
The resident contacted the TMO on 15 February 2022 and on 12 April 2022 with the same concern. The TMO spoke with the resident on 23 May 2022 and subsequently arranged a visit to the property. While it is noted that the TMO took appropriate steps to investigate and resolve the issue it was not acceptable that it took over 3 months to respond to the resident’s concern.
In an email on 8 July 2022 she explained that she had contacted the TMO about outstanding repairs, but that she had been ignored until she approached a member of the TMO in person. It is clear from the evidence provided that the resident had attempted to contact the TMO, it is also clear that the TMO had failed to respond within a reasonable timescale, and consequently failed to show how it was being courteous or helpful, as per its employee handbook.
She further explained that she was unhappy with the way she had been spoken to during a telephone conversation and subsequently raised a complaint about this.
Following the complaint, the TMO retracted its offer to repair the damaged wall stating that it would be revisited once the complaint reached a conclusion. This was unacceptable, the TMO was aware of the resident’s RTB application at this point and had agreed to carry out the repair so to renege on this was unfair and did not demonstrate good customer service.
While we acknowledge that the TMO reinstated its offer to complete the repair, it cannot go unnoticed that the TMOs initial decision to retract its offer would have inconvenienced the resident and caused further confusion about her entitlement to the repair.
In its stage 1 response the TMO accepted that the telephone call fell short of its expected standards and should have been handled better. It apologised for the distress caused and agreed to carry out the repair. It was appropriate that the TMO acknowledged its failings and apologised to the resident.
Nevertheless the resident escalated her complaint as she did not feel that it had been investigated fairly.
As part of its investigation, the landlord sought further comments from both the TMO and the resident herself. Both provided additional information and this was used to investigate the complaint. The landlord explained to the resident that it had reviewed all correspondence and information provided.
This Service finds a service failure in the landlords handling of the resident’s concerns about staff conduct. Whilst the landlord acknowledged its failings and apologised to the resident this did not go far enough to recognise that the TMO delayed in its responses to her and retracted an offer to complete a repair following the submission of a complaint.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was reasonable redress of the landlord’s handling of repairs.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was a service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns about staff conduct.

Reasons

The landlord has demonstrated that it completed repairs within the timescales provided and accepted that the damage caused to an internal wall was likely to have been caused by its contractors. To that end it agreed to repair the damage.
This Service acknowledges that the landlord has shown that it investigated the issue raised and accepted that its conduct did not meet standards it expected. We also acknowledge It apologised for the distress caused. However, this did not go far enough to recognise the inconvenience to the resident and the confusion caused by the TMO reneging on its decision to complete the repair to the ceiling.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

Within 4 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord is ordered to:
1. Apologise to the resident in writing for the failures highlighted in this report.
2. Pay directly to the resident £100 for the inconvenience experienced by the resident following the actions of the TMO.

Recommendations

It is recommended that within 4 weeks of the date of this report the landlord contacts the resident to re-offer to fill the holes in the bathroom wall and the cracks on the ceiling as per the offer made by the landlord following the stage 1 response. The recommendation does not extend to a full redecoration of both of the affected areas.
It is recommended that within 6 weeks of the date of this report the landlord review its complaints policy to include a requirement that TMOs must provide a copy of the outcome of all stage 1 responses to the landlord within a reasonable timescale of their completion.
Given that the TMO acts as the landlord’s management agent for housing functions it is recommended that within 6 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord review the timescales in its complaints policy with a view to aligning them with the timescales set out in the Complaint Handling Code.