Newlon Housing Trust (202009745)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202009745

Newlon Housing Trust

3 March 2021

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 landlord not communicating the outcome of a survey at the property to the resident and its handling of repairs, remedial works and communal issues.
2. the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background and summary of events

Background and policies

The resident has been an assured tenant of the landlord, at the property, from 21 April 2003.
The landlord’s repairs policy states that it aims to carry out 95% of non-emergency repairs within 20 days. Emergency repairs will be carried out within 24 hours; examples including the removal of hazardous needles and the cleaning of urine in communal areas.
The landlord’s service standards include a target timeframe of 10 working days in which to provide a full response to any service enquiry.
The landlord has adopted a two-stage complaints procedure whereby it aims to respond to a complaint at stage one within 10 working days. Where a complainant is dissatisfied with the outcome of their complaint at stage one, they may request a ‘stage two review’. The landlord’s target timeframe to review a case at stage two is within 30 days of the request for review.
The landlord’s compensation policy states that ‘when the [landlord] has failed to provide a high quality of service in some way (e.g., failure to reply to letters, losing important documents, repeated broken appointments), a payment of £25 could be made in recognition of inconvenience caused.’

Summary of events

On 4 November 2019, a surveyor attended the property to carry out an inspection of its condition, including the windows, hallway and stairs. The findings of this survey were not communicated to the resident, nor has the landlord been able to provide a copy of the report to this Service.
On the same date, repair works were carried out to the resident’s door and two days later, on 6 November 2019, works were carried out to the smoke alarm and the extractor fans in the property, as part of an overhaul of the electrics.
On 6 November 2019 the resident emailed the landlord regarding the standard of workmanship to the front door and extractor fan, referring to this as “shoddy”.
On 19 November 2019 the landlord contacted the resident, advising that the contractors would be in touch but if he did not hear within the next seven days then to get in touch
Having not heard, the resident emailed the landlord on 27 November 2019 advising that he had chased by telephone and not heard back. He wanted the works carried out and said that if works were not carried out within the next seven days, he would have to do it himself and invoice the landlord.
This Service has not been provided with any further correspondence from this time, but two months later, on 19 February 2020, the resident emailed the landlord to complain about a number of issues. Primarily, that he had not received any update as to the outcome of the surveyor’s visit to the property but also about the poor workmanship regarding the smoke alarm and door. He referred too, to various other outstanding repairs, the dumping of rubbish in the communal areas, as well as drug paraphernalia being left.
He was dissatisfied also, with the various repairs in the block being carried out differently, leaving property doors to look quite different from each other. The resident also enquired about cyclical works. He said he had been reporting these issues for the last “year or two” yet nothing had been done. This Service does not have sight of any historical reports made.
On 21 February 2020 the landlord acknowledged the resident’s complaint and advised that it would investigate and provide a full response within 10 working days of his email. On the same date it advised that it had logged the issues the resident had raised with regards to communal cleaning and Antisocial Behaviour (ASB) with its ‘Estates Team’ who would be in contact with next steps. It also asked him to confirm if there was any drug paraphernalia around at present as this would require immediate attention. There is no indication of the resident confirming either way.
On 28 February 2020 the landlord contacted the resident again, explaining that it was still looking at the issues he had raised and as there were various matters it was taking longer than expected and that it now aimed to provide a response by 16 March 2020.
On 18 March 2020 the landlord sent its stage one response to the complaint, in it, apologising for the delay in its response. The landlord also apologised that the resident had not yet received an outcome following the surveyor’s inspection in November 2019 and said that it was “vigorously pursuing” this from the relevant team and that it would continue to follow this up.
In terms of the quality of workmanship, in addition to issues the resident had raised in terms of the windows at the property and difference in repairs between various properties, the landlord said it was still following these things up.
The landlord stated there was no budget for internal and external decorating works due to fire safety and compliance taking priority and advised of the frequency of bathroom and kitchen upgrades and when the resident could expect these works to take place.
The landlord noted the ‘Estates Team’ had already been in contact with the resident regarding communal issues with rubbish and ASB. This Service has not been provided with evidence as to any communications that took place.
On 30 March 2020 an operative attended the property to make good the repairs to the door and smoke alarm. The landlord has stated that the operative was twice told to leave by the resident and that it telephoned him the following day to reschedule the works, as well as writing to him but was unsuccessful in making contact.
On 8 April 2020 the complaint was escalated to stage two of the landlord’s complaints process, following the resident’s request; him citing his continued dissatisfaction, including:

– The lack of any outcome following a surveyor visit to his home;

– Poor workmanship to a door and smoke alarm repairs, and;

– Communal concerns including bulk rubbish and drug paraphernalia.

On the same date the landlord confirmed that the resident’s complaint had been escalated through its complaints procedure and said that it would be in touch within 2-10 days to discuss further.
Two months later, on 15 June 2020, the landlord again confirmed to the resident that his complaint had been escalated to stage two. No information has been provided to this Service to explain the delay of two months.
A further two months later, on 14 August 2020, the resident contacted the landlord to advise that drug paraphernalia was continuing to be found in the communal areas of the building and provided a photograph of this, which pictured a needle.
On 17 August 2020 the landlord responded to the resident and said he should receive a reply from the ‘Estates Team’ within 10 working days but that if the paraphernalia continues to be there in a few days, for him to call an emergency number.
On the same date the resident responded, expressing his exasperation at the situation and referring to issues including a lack of report following the survey of November 2019 and the use of drugs in the communal area, lack of cleanliness, the dumping of rubbish and people urinating in the communal areas.
On 20 August 2020, the landlord responded to the resident’s email. It stated that the outcome of the surveyor’s report was as follows: “The property is in a fair repair and decorative condition throughout and there are no disrepair issues present within the property. Works are required to the external guttering to prevent any possibility of water ingress into the living room. Scaffolding is required from ground floor of the block to access the affected site to carry out effective repair to the guttering”. It stated that according to its records, the repair was completed in December 2019.
In terms of issues with a door, the landlord stated that it understood the resident had notified it that he had completed works himself and it asked him to elaborate with what he was dissatisfied with.
The landlord advised that it had raised issues with cleaning with its ‘Estates Team’ and the reports of drug paraphernalia to its cleaners. Regarding rubbish, it said the last report of rubbish was in April 2019 and that if the resident is aware of rubbish being dumped then for him to report it to the relevant team.
Regarding repair to the front entrance door, it noted that this was reported in July and was due to be repaired on 14 August 2020 and it would check that this had been done.
On 22 August 2020 the resident responded to the landlord reiterating the issues and his dissatisfaction, to which it responded on 26 August 2020, in which it asked him if he wanted works to the door and extractor fans carried out as he had previously refused this. The resident responded on the same date, stating that he had “nothing more to add” and has since strenuously denied any refusal of works to be carried out.
On 21 September 2020, the landlord advised that the complaints panel would be convening to hear the resident’s complaint on 25 September 2020.
On 12 October 2020 the landlord responded to the complaint at stage two of its complaints procedure, following the panel meeting. The landlord acknowledged that although it had sought to respond to the individual elements of the resident’s complaint at stage one, it had not fully addressed some of his queries, which was a service failure on its part.
It acknowledged that the quality of workmanship to the smoke alarms and doors was not at the standard expected and asked the resident to contact it if remedial works were still required.
In terms of the rubbish and paraphernalia in communal areas, the landlord found that once reported, it attended the property in good time and addressed the issues.
Regarding cyclical works to decorate communal areas, the landlord explained that the budget set aside for this had been reallocated to fire safety, given the Grenfell tragedy and that whilst frustrating for the resident, this work must take priority.
The landlord offered £100 compensation to the resident. This comprised of £25 it found in its inadequate response at stage one, £25 for its general poor communication, which it found could have been faster and more comprehensive, £25 for the poor quality of workmanship and £25 for delayed complaint handling. The landlord explained that as the resident’s rent account was in arrears, the compensation offered would be credited to that.

Post complaint

Correspondence between the resident and landlord has continued regarding outstanding works and issues. Additionally, the resident has stressed that he has never refused works.

Assessment and findings

Once on notice, the landlord was required to carry out the repairs it was responsible for, within a reasonable period of time, in accordance with its obligations under the tenancy and in law. The law does not specify what a reasonable period of time is; this depends on the individual circumstances of the case. In this case, there is evidence of the resident reporting issues with repair works on 6 November 2019 – although undoubtedly issues were reported prior to then, leading to the commissioning of a survey – although the matters reported predominantly concerned remedial repair works and communal issues.
There is no evidence of the landlord having carried out these remedial repairs or it having addressed any of the other issues raised with the building, although in its complaints response it said it did attend to the communal issues. The landlord has said that it attended the property to carry out repairs on 30 March 2020 and was twice told to leave by the resident. There is a reasonable expectation on a resident to engage with the landlord as to repair works. The resident has stated to this Service that he has never refused works but this appointment was unscheduled and he was working, which is why he could not have operatives attend at that time.
Irrespective, the landlord’s attempt to remediate the works was four months after the resident raised issues (works which the landlord has agreed were carried out poorly) – which is an unreasonably lapse of time from when the issues were reported.
There was clearly a breakdown in communication and in the relationship between the landlord and resident, with the resident raising multiple issues and the landlord struggling with what, when and how to respond, both in terms of addressing the practicalities of the issues themselves and in its responses to the complaint. The landlord missed an opportunity to establish with the resident, either by meeting or telephone conversation, the entirety of the issues and put together a plan to address them or to explain what could not or would not be addressed, in doing so, managing expectations and drawing a line under the issues.
The landlord’s communication and organisation was poor, as it has acknowledged in its stage two response to the complaint. Failing to respond to the resident, including not providing him with an outcome as to the survey, being vague in its responses and its lack of internal coordination between teams, understandably led to increased frustration and dissatisfaction on the part of the resident.
Having had a survey carried out at the property, the resident had an expectation of receiving an outcome and a way forward as to any works identified. The survey report never materialised and neither has it been provided to this Service. In this way, the landlord failed to communicate effectively or manage expectations, leaving the resident in a place of uncertainty for a protracted period of time. It is unclear from where the landlord obtained the paragraph it sent to the resident on 20 August 2020 and inappropriate that this information was provided nine months after the survey took place, with no acknowledgement at this point, of the delay or reasons for the delay. The landlord did not demonstrate that it had taken the resident’s concerns seriously and the frustration and inconvenience this delay and lack of information had caused.
It was inappropriate that the landlord did not seem to know what repairs had been carried out, both in its stage one complaint response and when it sent the survey paragraph, in this instance, not knowing whether the guttering work identified had been completed. It is unclear why the landlord did not know this or why the landlord had to “vigorously chase” regarding the outcome of the report, many months after it was conducted. In these regards and with the landlord’s passing on of information to different teams, with no evidence of joined-up working or follow-up, is demonstrative of a lack of internal cohesion in resolving repairs issues and complaints.
Turning to the communal issues reported, the landlord was responsible for responding to these also, within a reasonable period of time. No specific information has been provided to this Service as to the action the landlord took in response to the resident flagging these issues; whether or not it attended and when, what it found, or what action it took, not only in the moment but any future planning to help prevent a recurrence. In terms of the needle specifically, the landlord was obliged to respond to this as an emergency, for reasons of health and safety as well as in accordance with its own policy, which it did not do; instead advising the resident to contact it again if the needle remained there after a few days.
The landlord inappropriately handled the complaint; it was delayed at stage one and significantly delayed at stage two. Although the landlord contacted the resident to advise that its response would be delayed at stage one, it was still delayed thereafter and although the landlord is entitled to take more time in responding to a complaint, it did not update him of this thereafter.
When a landlord takes more time to respond to a complaint it is ordinarily because there are multiple issues raised and/or it needs additional time to investigate because of the complexities of the issue(s) and the extra time allows for a thorough and robust investigation and outcome. The stage one complaint that the landlord took extra time to respond to was not robust, however; it was unable to provide any outcome or explanation with regards to the surveyor’s report or in respect of the remedial works.
The stage two complaint response, besides being delayed with no explanation for this or its two letters advising that the matter had been escalated, did not go far enough in resolving the complaint. While it recognised that its stage one response was insufficient, it did not seek to address the outstanding concerns that the resident had continued to raise or to reassure him of what action it had taken or would take in respect of the communal issues.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Scheme, there was service failure in respect of the complaint about the survey report and response to issues raised.
In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Scheme, there was service failure in respect of the landlord’s complaint handling.

Reasons

There was service failure by the landlord in respect of it not providing the survey outcome and in its handling of reported issues insofar as it did not communicate effectively, failed to manage expectations and did not demonstrate that it had taken matters seriously and taken action to address issues within a reasonable period of time or explain what steps it had taken to prevent a recurrence of the issues.
There was service failure by the landlord in respect of its complaints handling insofar as its responses were delayed at stage one and stage two and it insufficiently resolved the complaint.

Orders

The landlord is to offer to meet with/discuss with the resident all and any outstanding concerns, with a view to putting together an action plan to address each issue within a reasonable period of time and/or to manage expectations where the landlord is unable to provide an outcome the resident is seeking. The landlord is to confirm to this Service the action plan and the completion of any works or steps it has taken in respect of the above.
The landlord is to pay the resident £200 compensation, comprised of £100 for the service failures found for each aspect of the complaint (this is a total amount, so where the landlord has already paid the £100 offered to the resident, this leaves a remaining £100 to pay. The resident is to note that where he has rent arrears, the landlord is entitled to use this compensation to pay off arrears).
The landlord is to carry out a lessons learned exercise in respect of the complaint, in particular, with reference to the survey report which has not been found and was not provided to the resident or to this Service, in addition to the delay in responding to the issues identified by the resident and its complaints handling. The landlord to provide a copy of this with any actions, to this Service.