Landlords can now complete the Complaint Handling Code Annual Submissions form. More information is available online.

Nottingham City Homes (202016325)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202016325

Nottingham City Homes

20 November 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

  1. The complaint is about the level of compensation offered by the landlord regarding acknowledged service failures relating to communal fence repairs.
  2. The landlord’s complaints handling has also been investigated.

Background and summary of events

Background

  1. The resident is a tenant of the landlord at the property. The complaint relates to the landlord’s response to his reports about damage to a communal fence in close proximity to the property.
  2. The landlord’s complaints procedure, at the time the complaint was first submitted, provided for a two stage complaints process. Stage one (‘fix and resolve’) amounted to the landlord focussing on putting the issue right. Stage two (‘investigation complaint’) was intended for more complex issues, with a response required within 15 working days. In the event that the complainant remained dissatisfied following the investigation stage, the option of progressing the case to a designated person, or to the Ombudsman was highlighted, though the procedure also refers to the option of discussing the case further with the landlord’s customer relations team.
  3. Prior to the landlord sending its final response on the complaint, it introduced a new complaints process (March 2021), in line with the Ombudsman’s complaints handling code. This process involves two stages, with a 10 working day timescale at stage one and a 20 working day timescale at stage two.
  4. The resident raised a further complaint relating to the windows at the property whilst the complaint under investigation remained open. This new complaint was outside of the remit of this investigation and has not been referenced further here.

Summary of events

  1. The resident complained to the landlord on 9 October 2020. He said that a landlord staff member had pushed over a damaged communal fence during March 2020, presumably as a safety precaution, with a view to fully resolving the issue at a later date. However no further action had been taken, despite the resident’s enquiries in April. On 4 June, he had made further contact and had been informed that the repair job had not been raised, though he noted that a landlord workman did attend to make the fence area safe. He had then phoned again (28 July) and had been promised a callback, which did not materialise. Again, no further action happened, with the resident saying he was unable to enjoy the communal garden as fly tipping stated to take place and weeds became overgrown. He had again called in September and was informed that there were no repair records on his file; he had requested that the fencing team be contacted whilst he was on the phone but was informed that this would not be possible. He had then been assured of a callback from a different staff member, which did not happen. This happened again the following week.
  2. The landlord attended to inspect the fence on 16 October 2020. Its notes confirm that it was unclear whether the fence was its responsibility and that it attempted to discuss the issue on that date with the resident but he was not home. On 2 November, the landlord’s internal email correspondence confirmed that its fencing team had made a decision to remove the existing fence and make good the area; it would also cut back shrubs and see if other stretches of the fence required attention. This information was passed on to the resident (date not clear), who asked that his complaint be responded to in any case.
  3. The landlord acknowledged the complaint on 9 November 2020, summarising the complaint as relating to the time taken to resolve the fence issue and its lack of communication on the same issue.
  4. The resident wrote to the landlord on 13 November 2020. He said that the landlord had not adhered to its complaints process as it failed to acknowledge within one working day, failed to resolve within a calendar month, no final response had been sent within 15 working days and no extension had been agreed for a response. He said that he had first raised the issue in April 2020 and he could not see where any issues regarding responsibility arose as he could not see who else might be responsible. He also asked why the landlord had pushed the fence over in the first place, why the fence issue (which he considered a safety risk) had taken so long to resolve and why so many communication failures had taken place.

10. The landlord acknowledged the resident’s contact of 13 November 2020 on 17 November, summarising it as a new complaint relating to, the ‘lack of communication and conflicting information’ from its customer service team, the failure to raise an emergency order in April 2020 regarding the fence, the fact that no further action was taken after the ‘make safe’ works in June 2020 and the lack of written communication from the landlord.

11. The resident wrote to the landlord on 3 December 2020. He said that his contact of 13 November amounted to his clarifying the nature of his complaint and was not a new complaint unto itself. He said that the broken fence had been removed on 18 November and that he had noted landlord representatives inspecting the garden area on 20 November. He questioned whether the letter of 17 November had actually been sent on that date and said that the landlord had failed to summarise his complaint accurately. He confirmed that he wanted a new fence to be erected and compensation and requested that all his points of dissatisfaction be addressed in a single complaint response.

12. The landlord sent a formal complaint response on 10 December 2020. It offered a chronology in relation to its ‘lack of communication’, which included 4 June 2020 when it attended to complete make safe works, following which no written communication would have been required. Regarding 28 July, it acknowledged that it should have informed the resident during the call that repairs would not be raised for the metal fencing and should not have agreed to call him back. Regarding 10 September, it said that it had failed to fully interrogate systems and again acknowledged it should not have agreed to a callback. It apologised for the overall standard of communication he had received, said it would feedback to individual staff members, had put in place a new system to enable staff to identify previous relevant emails on a case and also gave the resident a contact for any further issues with the fence. The landlord explained that the resident had the right to escalate his complaint, however, it also referred to an attached document that signposted the resident to a designated person, or this Service, in the event that he remained dissatisfied.

14. The resident responded on 3 January 2021. He again questioned whether the landlord had backdated its response as he had received it a week after the date it was completed. He also said that the landlord had not addressed his specific points and he had yet to receive a response regarding compensation. The resident also wrote directly to the landlord’s chief executive officer on 3 January, expressing his dissatisfaction with how it had handled the fence issue and his subsequent complaint. On 13 February, he wrote to the landlord again, saying that he had missed two calls from the landlord in January, had listened to the resulting answerphone messages, but wanted written responses to the two letters he had sent (on 3 January) as the landlord had not answered his questions nor investigated his complaint thoroughly.

15. The resident sought the assistance of his MP in achieving a resolution. On 1 March, the landlord confirmed to the MP that it was awaiting delivery of a metal safety railing in relation the fence complaint.

16. On 18 March 2021, the resident submitted his complaint to the Ombudsman. He said that he wanted compensation for his wasted time and resources as well as the stress and anxiety the landlord had caused. He said that the landlord had failed to summarise his complaint accurately, failed to respond to the points that he had raised, failed to provide requested information, given false information and failed to adhere to its complaints process. He also said that the fence repair had only been completed on 12 March following the involvement of his MP.

17. The Ombudsman was unclear as to whether the landlord’s December response to the resident amounted to a final response and sought clarification from both parties. The resident, with support from his MP, viewed the complaint process as complete, referring to the wording of the December response. The landlord disagreed and wrote to the resident on 22 March 2021 regarding the escalation of the complaint. It said that it had removed the ‘duplicate’ fence railing but understood that he still had some concerns; it suggested a home visit or gave telephone/email details for a further discussion to be held.

18. The resident responded to the landlord on 30 March 2021, expressing confusion as to why it had contacted him ‘outside’ of the complaints process as he awaited a formal response to the complaint. He also said that the landlord’s letter had confused him regarding the ‘duplicate’ fence railing and amounted to ‘nothing more than false assertions’.

18. Following further contact from the Ombudsman, the landlord confirmed to the resident on 15 April 2021 that it would provide a final response on the case. The resident responded on 21 April 2021, confirming his view that it had already sent a final response. He also said that his complaint amounted to more than the delay in resolving the fence issue and communication issues, referring to the numerous letters he had sent since October 2020.

19. The landlord sent its final response to the resident on 19 April 2021. It said that it had attempted to contact the resident to discuss the two complaints it had raised to confirm what the outstanding issues were and that it had combined the two complaints for the purposes of its final review. It acknowledged that its level of service had been below its service standards in relation to his communication with the customer services team, with his being required to make multiple contacts. It confirmed that it had raised awareness amongst staff about the importance of raising works to the appropriate team and offered an apology and £150 compensation to reflect these failures. It also confirmed that it had completed the fencing works on 12 March 2021 and that these works had been inspected and signed off.

19. The resident responded to the landlord on 27 April 2021. He accepted the £150 compensation in recognition of the impact on his time and resources, but said that the landlord had failed to provide a full response to the points he had raised as part of his complaint. There is no evidence that the landlord responded to this contact.

20.The resident continued to pursue his complaint through this Service, on 11 May he provided this Service with his chronology of the complaint, which included the formal correspondence he had received from the landlord, his letters to the landlord and receipts for postage for the written letters he had sent to the landlord. 

20. On 28 June 2021, the resident confirmed to this Service that his complaint related to:

a)     The landlord’s initial actions in pushing the fence over, which was not made safe and no orders raised to resolve the outstanding repair issues.

b)     The landlord’s communication failures when he had chased this issue up.

c)     The landlord’s complaint handling.

d)     His request for compensation for his time and resources.

Assessment and findings

Communal fence

21. At the time the complaint was first submitted, in October 2020, the landlord’s notes and email correspondence suggest a possible lack of clarity as to who had responsibility for the repair/maintenance of the communal fence. Its subsequent correspondence confirmed however that its repairs team had accepted responsibility and committed to resolving the issue, including making good the area around the fence and identifying if any other parts of the communal fence required attention.

22.The landlord’s acknowledgement letter of 17 November 2020 identified that the issue had first been reported in April 2020 and that it had completed ‘make safe’ works on 4 June 2020. Its final response confirmed that it fully resolved the fencing repair issue on 12 March 2021. This means that the issue took nearly a full year to resolve, an unacceptable delay in the circumstances. The landlord accepted that this had taken too long to resolve, referring to its communication failures, apologised and offered compensation (£150) for the time and resources expended by the resident in pursuing the issue, further assessment of which can be found below.

22.The resident’s correspondence with the landlord confirmed that his complaint related to more than just the delay and communication. He wanted to know why the fence had been pushed over (by a landlord employee) in the first place, he had concerns from a health and safety perspective, he was concerned that his ability to use/enjoy the communal garden area had been compromised and he was confused by the landlord’s need to assess whether it was responsible. In addition, he raised concerns about the landlord’s use of language at points, such as its reference to ‘duplicate’ fencing. Whilst the landlord was entitled to summarise the complaint, the resident had a reasonable expectation that his specific questions would be answered.

23.With respect to health and safety, the Ombudsman has noted that both the landlord and the resident have referred to ‘make safe’ works from June 2020 and is therefore persuaded that the landlord addressed this aspect of the fencing issue – albeit belatedly given that the initial report was in April 2020. Regarding the other issues – landlord responsibility, how the fence came to be damaged, use of the communal area and the language used by the landlord, there is no evidence of the landlord having responded. Further consideration about the landlord’s failure to address issues specifically raised by the resident can be found in the assessment of its complaints handling below. In the circumstances however, given the failure to address these issues, it is reasonable to conclude that the landlord failed to fully investigate the fence issue in light of the specific complaint raised by the resident.

Complaints handling

24. There was a lack of clarity about the landlord’s complaint response of 10 December 2020. The resident understandably considered this to amount to a final response as the document attached to the letter signposted him towards a designated person and the Ombudsman in the event that he remained dissatisfied. This confusion reflects the lack of clarity contained within the landlord’s complaints process at the time, that lists the relevant stages of the process as ‘options’ rather than stages. The process also lacked clarity as to whether a resident can progress the case internally, or externally, after the investigation stage. It is noted however, that the landlord, by the time of the final response in April 2021 had adopted a new complaints process that was in accordance with the Ombudsman’s complaint handling code.

25. Though the resident’s belief that the complaint process was complete was understandable, it was important that the landlord was given the opportunity to provide a further response. The Ombudsman will always seek to assist a landlord and tenant to resolve an issue without intervention wherever possible, including progressing down a multiple stage complaints process. In this instance, the landlord’s final response identified service failure, apologised, identified learning and the need to offer compensation. All of these resolutions were in accordance with the dispute resolution principles by which the Ombudsman considers complaints.

26. However, whilst the landlord is to be commended for recognising its communication failures and the delay in resolving the fence issue, it is of concern that it did not take the time to analyse the resident’s written communication, pick out the specific points he had raised and respond accordingly. He made clear that this is what he wanted and, irrespective of how it had summarised the complaint, the landlord had the opportunity to offer its position and close the complaint down. If information was not available, such as information concerning how the fence ended up being damaged, the landlord could have explained this. This would have provided the resident with reassurance that his complaint had been taken seriously and investigated thoroughly. It is noted that the landlord attempted to call the resident to discuss the outstanding elements of the complaint, however, it was not successful in doing this, as such, it would have been reasonable to respond to the complaint correspondence he had submitted.

Compensation

27. The compensation offered by the landlord related to the time and resources the resident had expended in pursuing the complaint. It was not clear whether the time element of this compensation offer related to the landlord’s acknowledged delay in resolving the fence issue, though it is reasonable to conclude that this was the case given the landlord’s complaint definition and its acknowledgment that it failed to raise repair works orders in a timely manner.

28. In all the circumstances of the case, the Ombudsman finds that the landlord’s offer of compensation did not adequately compensate the resident for the detriment he experienced in pursuing the complaint. Given the additional failures that have been identified, a further amount of compensation, amounting to a further £150 compensation is considered appropriate to reflect the landlord’s failure to address issues specifically raised by the resident and the unacceptable delay in resolving the communal fence issue. On this last point it is noted that the Ombudsman will typically expect to see lower amounts of compensation for communal issues as these will not normally impact upon a resident’s use and occupation of their home. Though, in this particular case, it is also noted that the landlord did not respond to the resident’s comments about the impact of the damaged fence on his use of the communal garden area.

Determination (decision)

  1. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme (the Scheme), there was service failure with respect to the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports about communal fencing.
  1. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Scheme, there was service failure with respect to the landlord’s complaints handling.

Reasons

  1. The landlord acknowledged the delay in resolving the communal fence issues and its communication failures, for which it apologised, identified learning and offered compensation. However, it failed to address specific points raised about its handling of the fencing issue and as such, failed to demonstrate that it had fully investigated the issue.
  2. The landlord’s complaint process lacked clarity and became protracted. In addition, the landlord failed to address specific issues raised by the resident as part of the complaint.

Orders and recommendations

Order

  1. The landlord to pay the resident the £150 compensation offered during the complaints process (if it has not already done so), as well as additional compensation of £150, broken down as follows:

a)     £75 for the additional service failures identified with its management of the fencing issue.

b)     £75 for the identified complaints handling failures.

  1. The landlord to confirm compliance with the above order within 4 weeks of this determination.

Recommendation

  1. The landlord to offer a further apology to the resident for the additional failures identified, together with any information it can provide in relation to the outstanding issues detailed in the assessment section above.