Greenwich Council (201909305)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 201909305

Greenwich Council

9 April 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 the landlord’s handling of the resident’s report of a defective window.
The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

Background and summary of events

Background

The resident began his tenancy with the landlord in November 2006. He became a Secure Tenant on 26 November 2007.
The property is located on the ground floor.

Legal and policy framework

The landlord and Tenant Act 1985

Under section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985, the landlord is obligated to keep in good repair the structure and exterior of the premises, except where the tenant or persons living with the tenant or the tenant’s visitors have caused disrepair by failing to use the property in a reasonable manner. The landlord must also keep the installations and fixtures / fittings (which it is responsible for) in good repair and proper working order.
Once the landlord has been informed of repairs that are needed, the tenant must allow a reasonable time for the work to be done, and liability only arises once the reasonable time has elapsed from the date the notice was served. The length of time will depend on the scale of the work and the effect the disrepair is having. The landlord will not be in breach of its repairing obligation until this time has elapsed.

Tenancy Handbook

The landlord has provided this Service with a copy of the tenancy handbook. This reiterates the landlord’s responsibility to keep in repair and proper working order parts of the resident’s home and would, although not specifically mentioned, include the resident’s windows. The handbook makes no mention to planned works and/or the resident’s rights where the landlord chooses to delay repairs to accommodate planned maintenance.

Your Guide to Repairs

The landlord has also provided this Service with a copy of its repair guidance. This details the landlord’s repair approach and of particular relevance, explains that:
1. For urgent repairs, such as where an external window is insecure, the landlord will endeavour to repair this within one working day.
2. Repairs and replacements will, on occasion, be postponed where it is better value for money to undertake a bulk order.

Complaints policy

The Ombudsman has additionally reviewed the landlord’s actions in line with its complaints policy. This policy outlines the landlord’s two stage process and explains that generally, the landlord will:
1. Acknowledge complaints within five working days of receipt;
2. At stage one, respond to complaints within 15 working days of the complaint request; and
3. At stage two, if the resident remains dissatisfied, offer a response within 20 working days of the escalation request.
4. Inform the resident, where the above timescales cannot be met, of any reason for delay and of a new revised timeframe.

Summary of events

On 2 June 2019 the resident reported that the window in his front room was in need of repair. Records suggest that this was attended to and made safe on the same day. The resident was advised that parts needed to be ordered to complete the repair.
The resident was advised, on 7 June 2019, that the job would likely need to be resolved by an external contractor.
The resident chased this repair on 10 June 2019. He expressed that while the window had been made safe, the repair works were still outstanding.
Following further breakage, the resident contacted the landlord on 12 June 2019 requesting that the windows be made safe again. The Ombudsman can see that this was done however the resident reported being displeased that he was unable to open the window, on 19 June 2019. Further contact was made with the landlord in late June and again on 7 July 2019 to establish when the window would be repaired.
On 12 July 2019 the landlord noted that despite making the window safe, the resident continuously ripped the window and frame off. It was believed that the resident was using the window to enter and exit the property.
On 22 July 2019 the landlord wrote to the resident. It thanked the resident for making contact and noted that after looking at the issue raised, it had not communicated with the resident effectively with regards to his window. It apologised for this, noting that following the emergency call out, the resident’s window was made safe on 2 June 2019 but the repair had not progressed since.
The landlord informed the resident that it had since reviewed the matter and established that the parts to his window were no longer available. The resident was therefore advised to keep his window secured shut to prevent any further damage. The landlord would be considering options for a programme of window renewals (for the resident’s whole block) which would likely take place sometime in the future.
The landlord highlighted that its Fire Safety Officer had carried out an inspection of the block on 3 July 2019 and confirmed that there was still adequate means of escape. It also noted that there was an alternative window in the room that would provide ventilation.
The landlord noted on 20 August 2019, following a telephone conversation with the resident, that the resident remained unhappy that he could not use his window. The resident requested that his dissatisfaction be escalated. The landlord was also asked to remove a lock from one of the smaller windows in the resident’s front room. He was displeased that the landlord had suggested moving his TV to access the windows behind this.
The Ombudsman can see that the landlord refitted a cylinder lock to the living room window on 5 September 2019.
On 10 September 2019 the landlord provided the resident with a stage one response. It apologised that it was unable to repair the resident’s window and again explained that on this occasion, it was unable to do so as the parts needed were obsolete. The window had therefore been secured shut and was not to be used. The landlord pointed out that there were other windows in the living room and that one window shut did not breach the fire safety regulations.
The landlord confirmed, however, that the resident’s block would be included in its window renewal programme for 2023. It also noted that the lock to the resident’s small window had been replaced to allow access.
On 15 September 2019 the resident responded. He requested that the landlord look further into his case as he considered it unacceptable for his window to be shut for three years. He explained that his neighbour, who had reported issues of with mould on her windows, had had her window replaced. He reminded the landlord that it was not his fault that the window parts were no longer available.
In relation to the other windows in his living, the resident explained that these were behind his TV. He could not move his tv, however, as all of the connection points were in this location. He added that the window that had broken was also the quickest and safest way to exit his home, in the event of a fire. He invited the landlord to review this for itself and requested that the landlord replace his window as soon as possible. He reminded the landlord that a number of fires had occurred in recent years in blocks.
On 30 September 2019, the landlord responded to the resident. It advised that in the instance of a fire, the means for escape was not through the resident’s window. With consideration of the resident’s concerns however, it would inspect the resident’s property to confirm the standard of the fire detection equipment present and would upgrade this if necessary. The landlord additionally explained that the circumstances of the resident’s neighbours window had differed to his own, as his neighbour had not required a full replacement of the operating mechanism.
On 7 October 2019, following a call with the resident, the landlord noted that the resident had sought legal advice and claimed that his window could not be left without repair for this length of time. The resident requested that the window be swapped with another in his living room which he rarely used. The landlord noted that the complaint needed to be escalated.
The landlord met with the resident on 15 November 2019 to discuss fire safety within his home and his defective window. It was recommended that his smoke detection equipment be upgraded. During this visit, the resident was also informed that the landlord would seek to establish whether it would be feasible to change the window.
On 11 December 2019 the landlord provided its final response. It thanked the resident for his phone call on 7 October 2019 and apologised for its delay in responding. It concluded that no immediate replacement would take place as:
1. The replacement window programme was due to form part of the planned maintenance programme which would be undertaken by the Capital Investment Team in 2020 / 2022.
2. It had acknowledged the resident’s concerns and after inspecting the fire detection equipment in the resident’s flat, had upgraded the smoke alarm system.
3. As it had advised, the room could be suitably ventilated. It was also unable to swap the windows as it was unable to obtain parts and did not want to risk damaging the functioning windows in the attempted swap. The landlord stated that the only option was to permanently shut this window pending the scheduled window replacement.
Review of the landlord’s internal emails suggest that the programme of works has yet to commence.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s report of a defective window

The Ombudsman has considered the landlord’s actions in relation to the resident’s window and in the Ombudsman’s opinion, the repair solution proposed was unreasonable and inconsistent with good practice.
As per the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985, and the landlord’s repair guidance, the landlord was obligated to respond to the resident’s need for repair within good time. In attempting to satisfy this, the Ombudsman is content that the landlord’s initial action was appropriate, noting that the landlord responded to the resident’s report of a defective window on the same day and made this safe as per its responsibility. This was appropriate. The Ombudsman also notes that the landlord responded to a later callout, where the resident reported further breakage, and implemented an appropriate temporary fix.
Moreover, the Ombudsman can see that where the resident expressed concern for his safety, and that he would lose a potential escape point in the event of a fire, the landlord offered the resident reassurance and clarity. The landlord reassessed the standard of the fire safety equipment in the resident’s property, upgrading the resident’s smoke detector, and confirmed that following its Fire Safety Officer’s inspection, there was still adequate means for escape. This was reasonable. The resident was also advised that his window was not to be used as a general exit to avoid any misunderstanding.
On 22 July 2019 however, in the landlord’s somewhat delayed response to the resident’s concerns on 7 July 2019, the landlord identified that it was unable to obtain the necessary parts to repair the resident’s window. In the Ombudsman’s opinion, at this stage, the landlord should have begun to consider alternative methods to restore the resident’s window. While it was fair to consider including the resident’s window in the programme for window renewals, when the landlord learned of the length of time this would take, a more reasonable and time appropriate alternative should have been sought. The Ombudsman cannot see that the landlord did this, however. Instead, the Ombudsman notes that the landlord instructed the resident to cease using the window until its repair in 2023. It was later advised that the planned works would take place in the 2020/2022 programme.
The Ombudsman acknowledges that as per the landlord’s repair guidance, where it is more feasible or cost effective, the landlord may delay repairs or replacements to be undertaken under its planned maintenance. This is not unusual, particularly where issues have occurred at more than one property. In the Ombudsman’s opinion, however, it was unreasonable to delay the repair of the resident’s window by two / three years. The lack of available parts did not absolve the landlord of its repair responsibilities or its obligation to undertake repairs within a reasonable time and as suggested by the resident, should not have been to his detriment.
The Ombudsman appreciates that the resident did have other, smaller windows within his living room that he was able to access. The Ombudsman also recognises that following the resident’s request, and the landlord’s inspection, the landlord refitted a cylinder-lock on an alternative window to enable its use and confirmed for the resident that the available windows would offer adequate ventilation. This was appropriate. In the Ombudsman’s opinion, however, it was still unfair to expect the resident to be without access to his main [large] window, for the proposed length of time. While the landlord’s actions did reduce the detriment to the resident, it was still obligated to keep the fixtures and fittings in working order.
The Ombudsman has therefore concluded that as a result of the landlord’s decision to defer the resident’s repairs until its maintenance programme, the landlord allowed a reasonable length of time to elapse, contrary to its repair responsibilities under the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 and good repair standards.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint

In respect of the landlord’s handling of the complaint, the Ombudsman notes that at stage two of the complaints process, the landlord failed to uphold the timescale set out in the complaints policy. As per its policy, upon receiving the resident’s expression of further dissatisfaction on 7 October 2019, the landlord should have responded to the resident within 20 working days. The Ombudsman notes, however, that the landlord did not offer its final response until 11 December 2019, almost two months later. In the Ombudsman’s opinion, this was inappropriate. Not only did this delay the resident in establishing the landlord’s final position on his window, the lack of communication additionally meant that the resident was uncertain when he would receive a response. Under the landlord’s policy, where it is unable to meet a complaint deadline, the landlord should make contact with the resident to explain the reason for its delay, and to set a new timeframe for a response. The Ombudsman cannot see that the landlord did this, however. The Ombudsman has therefore determined that there was a service failure.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was:

a. A service failure in respect of the landlord’s handling of the resident’s report of a defective window.

b. A service failure in respect of the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

Reasons

The Ombudsman has arrived at the above determination as:

a. In the Ombudsman’s opinion, the landlord’s decision to defer the resident’s window repair until it undertook its planned works [years later] was unreasonable. This was contrary to the landlord’s responsibility to keep the resident’s window in working order and to address reports of the need for repair, within good time. In the Ombudsman’s view, if the landlord could no longer obtain the parts required to repair the resident’s window, it should have considered another option such as replacing the window using an alternative supplier. It was unfair to expect the resident to wait such a significant length of time for this work to be done. The Ombudsman notes that the repair of this window is still outstanding.

b. The landlord failed to offer its final response in accordance with the timeframe set out in the landlord’s complaints policy. The landlord’s complaints process dictates that at stage two, a response will be offered within 20 working days, however the landlord failed to do so until more than two months later. This, although not significantly delayed, was inappropriate.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

In recognition of the above service failures, the Ombudsman orders the landlord to:
1. Award the resident £150 to reflect the delay in undertaking the necessary repair to the resident’s window and the inconvenience which has resulted from being unable to use this.
2. Award the resident £50 in acknowledgement of its delayed response, and the full circumstances of the case.
The landlord should make arrangements to repair or replace the resident’s window and write to the resident outlining its plan of action within four weeks of receiving this determination.
The landlord should also make the above payment within four weeks of receiving this determination.

Recommendations

The landlord should ensure that it takes a reasonable approach where it endeavours to include outstanding repair work within a greater scheme of planned maintenance. Where it is believed to be appropriate to postpone a repair or replacement to be included in planned works, the landlord should consider whether the length of time without repair will be reasonable and the impact this will have on the resident(s).