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

Harrow Council (202007622)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202007622

Harrow Council

28 March 2022


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 resident complains about the landlord’s handling of:
    1. Concerns about safety issues at the property due to subsidence;
    2. rehousing, and;
    3. the formal complaints.

Background

  1. The landlord’s decant policy sets out that where there were extensive works which could not be carried out with the tenant in the property the landlord would arrange to move them. This would either be on a temporary or permanent basis and the tenant would be given this option. In some circumstances it may not be possible to agree to permanent re-housing if it was likely to take a considerable length of time to find a like for like property.
  1. Officers would go through the decant policy with the tenant to ensure they were aware of what to expect in terms of accommodation and assistance, allowing plenty of time for this discussion, as the landlord realises that it is a stressful time when a tenant is required to move out of their home.
  2. Where a tenant is to be permanently decanted, they will be able to ‘bid’ for properties on a like for like basis. Band A is awarded if a property is imminently required for essential works and the tenant will not be returning.
  3. The landlord also had an emergency decant policy: The purpose of this policy was to explain what action it would take when it became necessary to temporarily re-house a tenant following an emergency, where responsive repairs cannot reasonably or safely be carried out while the tenant remains in occupation
  4. The landlord’s complaint policy states it should seek to resolve complaints at the earliest opportunity, and where possible prior to implementing its formal two-stage process. It states ‘…every attempt should be made to deal with complaints quickly and informally, at the point of service delivery.’
  5. If this is not possible, a formal complaint must be recorded at stage one. If the complaint concerns the service manager, a more senior manager should respond. An officer against whom a complaint is personally directed should not respond to a complaint. Complaints should be acknowledged within three working days, and a full written reply sent within fifteen working days.
  6. If the customer is dissatisfied with the outcome of the stage one investigation, the landlord would arrange for the complaint to be reviewed by a more senior manager at stage two. The request should be acknowledged within three working days, and a full written reply sent within twenty working days.
  7. All responses should include information on the right to escalate the complaint. If a complainant continues to express their dissatisfaction but does not provide specific reasons as to why, in some circumstances the complaint will not be escalated to the next stage, but instead responded to as an ongoing matter. This process is used to ensure that complaints are only escalated when necessary and not just because a complainant continues to express their dissatisfaction.

Summary of events

  1. The resident reports that she first raised repair issues at her property related to subsidence in 2018. In 2019 the resident made a complaint about subsidence at the property and safety concerns related to this, which the landlord provided responses to at stage one and two of its complaint procedure in August and September 2019. It concluded that there was a low risk to the structure of the property and no risk to the occupants. It explained that the property required underpinning and the works were being specified and designed, and said, ‘Once this is provided this will be considered to be a project and a decision will be made by the Council when best to programme this work.’ It said that gas integrity safety checks of the piping had been carried out with no concerns reported. The landlord signposted the resident to the Ombudsman if she remained dissatisfied.
  2. The resident chased the landlord up in early 2020 about the planned works, submitting a complaint about delays to this, and on 25 April 2020 the landlord provided a stage one response, stating, ‘The documentation for the works are ready to be tendered once some minor internal administrative process has been completed. The works will then be tendered out.’ It explained that Covid-19 restrictions were causing delays with this, and it therefore could not give a firm date for start of works. The landlord advised that if the resident was dissatisfied with the response, she could contact the Corporate Complaints Officer, explaining why within 20 working days.
  3. The resident emailed the Corporate Complaints Officer on 25 July 2020 saying that she was aware it had been more than 20 working days, but was concerned as she had received no update on the subsidence and associated works, explaining that the back garden was now unsafe for her children to use, which had resulted in one child suffering a broken arm. The landlord advised that it expected works to begin in October 2020. The resident asked what arrangements would be made for her and her family whilst these works took place.
  4. On 10 September 2020 the landlord logged another stage one complaint, which appears to have been in response to an email the resident sent on 3 September 2020. In this email the resident explained that her home was unsafe, causing her children injuries, and the situation was causing her ‘untold and unnecessary stress and anxiety’. She explained that the level of works required would mean that she and her children, who had significant health issues, would not be able to live in the house while these were ongoing, and so she would be open to a permanent move, something that had recently been suggested to her by the landlord, although she would prefer to stay in the same area due to the support she received from family.
  5. On 18 September 2020 landlord said, ‘…we agree that the priority is to seek alternative accommodation for you due to the long process the corrective work will take…’ It asked the resident to be open to a move to other areas to assist with this, as the availability of three-bedroom properties was very low.
  6. The resident chased this up on 20 October 2020 and in response the landlord said that it would be in touch as soon as the transfer application had been agreed and processed. The resident raised concerns that this had not yet been done.
  7. The landlord provided a stage one response on 2 November 2020 which it summarised as being about a request for a managed transfer. It said that this had been approved and passed to the relevant team to follow up with the resident directly, and she would shortly be provided with details on how to bid on properties that became available. A surveyor would also be contacting her ‘in due course’ with an update on the works to the property. The letter concluded by advising the resident of her right to escalate the complaint.
  8. The resident replied that same day saying that she wanted the matter ‘looked at further’ as she felt that some of the contents of the letter were incorrect. She explained that the landlord had emailed on 18 September 2020 agreeing the permanent move, and as she heard nothing further, she chased this up six weeks later and received a letter stating she was band A+. The resident said that she then raised concerns about the content of the letter, for example being asked to bid for homes with fewer bedrooms, and no mobility needs detailed, but had no reply.
  9. She said ‘I have been advised that under the Equalities Act Harrow Council need to take into account the needs of my children and in my opinion you are not. If this had been agreed in September why has it taken so long to give me a banding or why as I was led to believe have I not been contacted and a property sought for my family?’ She asked what three-bedroom homes had been available since 3 September 2020.
  10. As she did not receive a response, the resident emailed the CEO on 21 December 2020. She explained that she had made a stage two complaint on 2 November 2020 but had not had a reply. She said that although she had priority banding, she had been unable to bid on a three–bed house that had been available that would have been ideal. She had raised this with her housing officer, but no explanation had been provided. She said that further incidents had occurred due to the repair issues at the property, including plaster falling from the walls as her child walked downstairs. She said, ‘I also feel that the council is discriminating against my family in terms of the equalities act and two of my children’s disabilities.’ The CEO’s office said they had passed this on to the Director of Housing to respond to directly.
  11. On 18 January 2021 the landlord sent a stage one response. It said that plaster had been repaired in December 2020. It had looked into temporarily decanting the resident whilst major works were to be carried out to the property, but the resident had refused to be moved temporarily, due to the needs of her children. Therefore, a management transfer request was authorised for a permanent move, and the resident was able to bid on properties from October 2020, with the highest priority. The landlord explained that there was a limited amount of stock: Only two three-bed properties had become available in the area in the last 18 months. The resident had only placed one bid on one property which was currently not ready. The landlord invited the resident to submit information on her children’s medical conditions, such as GP letters.
  12. In reply the resident questioned why the response had not been provided at stage two, and the focus on the issue of the plaster when this had not been the point of the complaint. She said that she had already provided the medical evidence. She explained that she had not refused a temporary move as one had not been offered – it had been agreed in September 2020 that the move would be permanent. Further, the house she had bid on had been the only one she had been able to bid on, and it was outside of her preferred area. She said, ‘This constant issue of not understanding the main issue and inaccuracies in responses continues to cause me great stress and upset. I would like someone to respond to the whole issue that has been going on for 3 years and the injuries caused to my children, the lack of safety and care the council has shown and the continued ignoring of my concerns.’
  13. The resident sent further emails over the coming weeks regarding her move, which were not responded to until she again copied in the CEO. The landlord then acknowledged a stage two request on 14 March 2020 (the resident has explained that this was after she had emailed the CEO about the matter), apologising for the delay. In reply, the resident explained that her complaint was about:
    1. The physical and emotional damage the condition of the house caused, including her child’s broken arm.
    2. The refusal to acknowledge the condition of the house initially and factually incorrect information provided since subsidence had been acknowledged.
    3. The continued deterioration of the condition of the house and the impact this had on the medical needs of her child.  
    4. Failure to follow the equalities act and discrimination towards her child.
    5. Lack of courtesy and poor communication.
  14. The resident pointed out that the landlord’s stage one response had failed to address her concerns, and also complained about incorrect information a staff member had provided to her MP, and what she described as ‘malicious actions’ from this individual.
  15. Around this time the resident was offered a temporary decant to a property, which she declined on the basis that it had damp and so was not suitable for her child due to their medical conditions. The resident also pointed out that the landlord had agreed that she would be moved permanently.
  16. On 30 March 2021 the landlord emailed the resident noting that she had rejected the temporary 12 week decant. It said, ‘We have a right to move you from your home, either temporarily or permanently…We are now required to start decanting you and your family for a period of approximately 12 weeks…Please confirm your acceptance [of the property] urgently.’
  17. The resident replied expressing her concern and distress at this, saying, ‘By not taking my children’s’ disabilities into account you are discriminating against my family. As agreed in your emails and letter you stated that one permanent move was recognised by yourselves as in the best interests of my family.’ The landlord replied saying that it had arranged a meeting with senior management, to discuss and resolve the situation.
  18. The following day she the resident was offered a permanent move to a suitable property. The new tenancy began on 5 April 2021.
  19. The landlord provided a stage two response dated 13 April 2021, in which it reiterated its previous comments on the availability of three-bedroom properties and referred the resident to this Service. 

Assessment and findings

  1. When investigating a complaint, the Ombudsman applies its Dispute Resolution Principles. These are high level good practice guidance developed from the Ombudsman’s experience of resolving disputes, for use by everyone involved in the complaints process. There are only three principles driving effective dispute resolution: Be fair – treat people fairly and follow fair processes; put things right, and; learn from outcomes.
  2. In her communications with this Service, the resident has explained that her complaint is about the lack of care in terms of her family’s safety, the way the move to a new home was dealt with, the time taken, and the way her concerns were addressed. She states that at times the landlord insinuated she was not telling the truth, ‘…even though I had emails to back it up’ referring to her emails dated 13 September 2020 and 2 November 2020.
  3. She also is unhappy with the landlord’s handling of her formal complaints. In particular, she states that it failed to respond to the substantive issues she raised, saying of the April 2021 stage two response ‘…I am gobsmacked-it doesn’t even cover my complaint-I even took the time to clarify with them what I wanted looked at and they have yet again ignored me.’ She has said that she was treated appallingly by the landlord, and the situation caused her mental health to suffer, as well as the physical health of her children.

Safety issues

  1. The landlord investigated the resident’s concerns about the safety of her property in 2019, after she complained about gas safety relating to the subsidence, and dust from the cracks affecting her child’s lung condition. The landlord’s reply stated that the structural issues presented no health and safety concerns. It said, ‘Although I understand the structural issues affecting the property, it should be pointed out that the structural cracks present no risk at present, albeit I fully accept that the cracks are not aesthetically pleasing.’ The landlord noted that it had offered to fill the cracks, which would stop any dust, but the resident had declined this. It offered again to carry out this work.
  2. It said that structural consultants had reported internal cracking due to tree growth and drought conditions which had caused the soil to shrink, confirming that there was a low risk to the structure and that trees needed to be managed. Gas integrity safety checks were carried out on a quarterly basis and there were no concerns reported.
  3. The Ombudsman has had sight of the structural consultant’s report dated 11 January 2019. The ‘risk assessment’ section states ‘The construction defects show a low risk of structural failure.’ In light of this, the landlord’s response in 2019 was reasonable, and there is no evidence of a risk to safety at this time due to subsidence. The landlord also offered to fill in the cracks, which was a proportionate response to the concerns about dust.
  4. The Ombudsman has requested records relating to the gas integrity checks, but the landlord has not been able to provide these. There is no indication that any damage was caused to the gas pipes by the subsidence, and the landlord has explained that all gas safety certificates issued from 2018 to 2020 show no structural interference to the gas pipe relating to the movement of the building. Nevertheless, it is a shortcoming on the part of the landlord that it has been unable to evidence the quarterly safety checks referenced in its complaint response.
  5. The resident next mentioned safety concerns in her April 2020 complaint, detailing her child’s medical conditions and concerns about potential hazards in the house. She said ‘I will hold the council fully responsible for any injuries to my children throughout this time…’ The landlord’s 25 April 2020 reply did not reference the safety concerns.
  6. The resident also mentioned her concerns about the safety of the property in other correspondence with the landlord in 2020. The records show that the resident reported to the landlord on 25 July 2020 that her children could no longer use the back garden due to the concrete lifting, explaining that her child, whose medical condition meant she could at times lose balance, had fallen over a lifted piece and broken her hand. The information available indicates that the landlord attended soon after to inspect. The resident has reported that it agreed that the garden area was a trip hazard due to subsidence, but there is no contemporaneous record of this visit or findings, or any other action taken by the landlord.
  7. When the resident raised her concerns about the safety of her property in September 2020, the landlord did not respond to this in its subsequent November 2020 stage one letter. While the resident’s initial response asking for escalation did not reference concerns about safety, her subsequent December 2020 email to the CEO mentioned plaster falling off the wall as her child was walking past. The landlord’s January 2021 stage one letter stated that this had been repaired, which may have been the case, but missed the point the resident was raising about the safety of the property.
  8. The resident’s subsequent March 2021 clarification of her complaint specifically set out her concerns about the condition of the house, referencing her child’s broken hand, but the landlord provided no reply to this in its stage two letter of April 2021.
  9. Other than attending to inspect the garden after the July 2020 incident (of which there is no detailed record), there is little evidence of the landlord responding to the resident’s concerns about safety in 2020/2021. She set out a number of concerns about her children’s health issues, but there is no record of the landlord acknowledging these or otherwise taking them into account. While the 2019 complaint response had concluded that there were no safety issues, a year on this could potentially have changed. There is no record of the landlord attending to inspect for hazards, which would have been a reasonable course of action to take in the circumstances.
  10. There was maladministration on the part of the landlord in its handling of this matter.

Rehousing

  1. It is not apparent exactly how or when the landlord decided that a decant was necessary, or at what point the decant policy should have been followed. The policy states under the heading ‘Establishing That A Decant Is Necessary’ that the Project Manager will make a full report on the defects in the property and advise the Project Liaison officer if it is recommended that the tenant should be temporarily or permanently rehoused: It is not clear whether this occurs before, during, or after the works are prepared for and go to tender. Neither is there any evidence of such a report being made.
  2. The landlord had advised the resident in July 2020 that the subsidence works were due to begin in late October 2020. The resident had explained to the landlord that due to the needs of her children, she needed time to prepare them for any changes. Email exchanges between the resident and the landlord in August and early September 2020 show the resident asking what arrangements would be made for her family during the works, with the landlord saying that arrangements would be made by the Housing Officer. There is no evidence to show that the landlord went through the decant policy with the resident to ensure she was aware of what to expect in terms of accommodation and assistance. It is understandable that the resident was anxious that no decisions or plans had been made by early September 2020, given that the works were imminent: The landlord’s communication should have been better here.
  3. It was not until 18 September 2020 that a permanent move was agreed. There was then a delay in this being actioned, and it was not until the resident chased the landlord up in October 2020 that she was able to begin bidding. No explanation has been provided for this delay, which was worrying for the resident given she had been told that the works were due to begin in late October 2020. The landlord did follow its decant policy by awarding band A, giving the resident the highest priority for a transfer.
  4. The resident raised a number of concerns over the following weeks about issues with bidding, and whether her children’s disabilities were being taken into consideration, but there is no evidence that these matters were addressed.
  5. Neither is there evidence of the landlord updating the resident on the expected start date of the works (which did not begin in October 2020), which it should have done. When she emailed the landlord on 23 March 2021, worried as her neighbour had told her she was being decanted for 12 weeks, she said ‘…please can I be updated urgently the stress of this situation and no communication is making me ill.’ In response a Manager said ‘…we will be moving residents temporarily during this time…We have a right to move you from your home, either temporarily or permanently. We may need to do this because your home needs major repair work, demolishing or redeveloping. Under these circumstances, we will usually offer you other accommodation (temporarily) and help with moving.’
  6. This was not a reasonable response. The resident was already aware that works were needed to her home and that she needed to move from the property: She emailed as she was not aware of the works being imminent, as suggested by the neighbour’s reports of their decant. Further, the landlord’s email spoke of temporary decants, whereas it had been agreed that the resident would move permanently. Given the distress the resident was expressing, the tone of this response was inappropriate.
  7. In reply the resident said ‘…the council throughout have not communicated well and have not acknowledged the impact of this and the works that have needed to be done throughout due to subsidence.’ She said that she was desperate and asked the landlord to confirm whether work was beginning on her home soon. She emailed again the following day saying that she had tried to make contact by telephone but had no response, and asked the landlord to contact her urgently. There is no indication that anyone did, which was a failing on the part of the landlord.
  8. The landlord then emailed the resident with the details of a property she had previously turned down, and the resident replied explaining why it was unsuitable for her children’s medical needs. On 30 March 2021 the Manager emailed the resident stating that she had been unsuccessful with the two properties she had recently bid on, and so would need to accept the property that she had previously turned down. The email said, ‘We are now required to start decanting you and your family for a period of approximately 12 weeks…Please remember this is a temporary move and you will be returning to [the property] after the works are completed…Please confirm your acceptance urgently.’
  9. An internal email of the same date states ‘We will be withdrawing the management transfer’. There is no indication that the resident was advised that this was being considered or otherwise warned that the management transfer could be withdrawn. Further, internal records suggest that there was a bid outstanding and so the comment that the resident had been unsuccessful with her recent bids was incorrect.
  10. The landlord’s records show that the resident then contacted the landlord by telephone very distressed, and spoke with a different manager who agreed to meet with senior management to discuss and resolve her concerns around the temporary decant, with a full response to be provided by 1 April 2021. This was a fair response and demonstrates that at this point the landlord was listening to the resident’s concerns and taking steps to try and resolve these. Before the full response could be provided, the resident was informed she had been successful in her recent bid for a permanent move.
  11. The decant policy recognises that ‘…it is a stressful time when a tenant is required to move out of their home.’ This understanding does not appear to have been put into practice in the landlord’s handling here, and the resident was not treated fairly. There was maladministration on the part of the landlord.
  12. Finally, in the information that the landlord has provided to us, it has highlighted its emergency decant policy as being relevant. However, it does not appear that the emergency decant policy applied here: There was no ‘emergency’ that required the resident to leave her home immediately.

Complaint handling.

  1. The resident has complained about the landlord’s handling of her 2020/2021 complaints.
  2. The landlord failed to address these complaints in line with its complaint policy. The complaint logged at stage one on 10 September 2020 was not responded to until 2 November 2020, some way outside of the 15 working day timeframe. The response was very brief, and did not address the concerns that the resident had raised, such as the time taken to award her banding.
  3. The landlord did not acknowledge or respond to the 2 November 2020 escalation request until the resident contacted the CEO. In total, it took two and a half months to provide a response, and when it did, this was another stage one. It is not apparent why the landlord did not escalate the matter as requested, and there is no indication that this was discussed with the resident at any point.
  4. The second stage one was again brief, and did not address the concerns that the resident had raised in her 2 November 2020 email and her subsequent email to the CEO, for example in relation to the equalities act and her children’s disabilities.
  5. Further, the information in the 18 January 2021 stage one response was incorrect, stating that the resident had refused to be moved temporarily and so a management transfer request was authorised: There is no indication that the resident was offered a temporary decant prior to the management transfer.
  6. When the resident again asked for a full response to her complaint, it took the landlord two months to acknowledge, again after the resident had to involve the CEO. In reply to the acknowledgement the resident clearly set out her complaint, again pointing out that the landlord’s responses to date had failed to address her concerns.
  7. The landlord provided a stage two response on 13 April 2021, three months after the escalation request, and so some way outside of the 20 working time scale. This was another brief reply, which only reiterated previous comments on the availability of properties and did not reference or address the complaint that the resident had clearly set out.
  8. Both the stage one response of 18 January 2021 and stage two response of 13 April 2021 were from the same staff member, and there is no indication that the complaint was reviewed by a more senior manager in line with the complaint policy. Further, this was the staff member that the resident had specifically raised concerns about, referring to ‘malicious actions’ and therefore should not have responded to the complaint, in line with the complaint policy.
  9. Finally, the landlord’s responses to the complaint did not recognise the failings in the handling of the move as detailed in this report, and so cannot be said to have ‘learnt from outcomes.’ Neither was any action taken to ‘put things right’ for the resident.’ As such, orders are made below for remedy.

Determination (decision)

  1. In accordance with Section 54 of the Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of:
    1. Concerns about safety issues at the property due to subsidence;
    2. rehousing, and;
    3. the formal complaints.

Reasons

  1. The landlord’s 2019 response to the concerns about safety was in the main reasonable, though lacks supporting evidence. However, the landlord failed to address the resident’s ongoing concerns in 2020/2021. This was frustrating and worrying for the resident.
  2. The landlord acted fairly in agreeing a management transfer, demonstrating that it did take the needs of the resident and her family into consideration. However, there was a delay in the management transfer being actioned once it had been agreed, and the resident’s concerns about this were not responded to. She wasn’t then kept updated on a date for the works to be carried out, and when she enquired about this on 23 March 2021, instead of updating her, the landlord pressured her to accept a temporary decant, despite her having a bid outstanding. Overall, communication was poor at times, and the decant policy was not fully followed. These failings caused the resident distress, frustration and upset.
  3. There were significant failings in the landlord’s handling of the complaint, which were very frustrating for the resident, at a time when she was already feeling distressed by the move and resulted in her having to take time and trouble pursuing the matter. She did not receive a full response to her concerns.

Orders

  1. Within one month of the date of this report, the landlord must:
    1. Pay the resident a total of £700, comprised of £150 for the frustration and worry failings in the handling of the safety concerns cause, £250 for the distress, frustration and upset failings in the handling of the rehousing caused, and £300 for the time and trouble the failings in the complaint handling caused.
    2. Carry out a review of the complaint handling in this case, to identify what went wrong and why, and whether any action needs to be taken to prevent a recurrence of the errors (or has already been taken). It should share the outcome of this review with the Ombudsman.

Recommendations

  1. The landlord should consider how it communicates with tenants required to move out of their home to ensure that, as per the decant policy, it takes into account the stress experienced.