Tower Hamlets Council (202116352)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202116352

Tower Hamlets Council

5 May 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 complaint is about the landlord’s handling of repairs to the resident’s balcony door and windows.

Background

  1. The resident is a tenant of the landlord and lives in a flat.
  2. The landlord’s contractor attended the resident’s home in February 2020 to inspect repairs needed to the balcony door and windows. A repair order was raised to “overhaul” the windows, but closed in March 2020 with the note “‘The tenant refused any repairs to be carried out as she wants new windows please advise if we can close the job down” (in this context, overhaul meaning to repair).
  3. There is no evidence of further activity until the resident contacted the landlord on 11 January 2021 and reported an issue with her balcony windows not shutting properly and letting cold air in. The resident also contacted the landlord on 11 January 2021 and asked to see a copy of the inspection report from 2020, as she wanted to know what work had been proposed at the time.
  4. In response, the landlord emailed the resident on 18 January 2021 with details of what was reported from the inspection undertaken in 2020. The notes it provided confirmed that work was needed to windows and the balcony door and that a repair order which was raised to overhaul them.
  5. The landlord’s contractor attended the resident’s home to progress the repair work on 19 January 2021. The corresponding repair log described the job as an overhaul to the balcony door and windows. It noted that the operative eased and adjusted the balcony doors, re-fixed the top and bottom keeps so the door shut tighter, and relocated the centre keep.
  6. The resident made a formal complaint to the landlord on 20 January 2021. She said a recommendation was made to replace the balcony windows when the repair was previously inspected in February 2020, but no action had been taken to resolve this since. The resident said the contractor who reattended the repair that January made the same recommendation that the inspector made in 2020. The resident wanted the landlord to accept that it had failed to carry out the work that was recommended by the inspector in 2020. She asked for compensation for the delay in carrying out the window works for 11 months, and asked to see a copy of the inspection report (from February 2020).
  7. The landlord issued its stage one complaint response on 4 February 2021. It advised the resident that its repair records noted that the resident refused window repairs in 2020 as she was expecting new windows. It said that the resident’s property was reattended on 19 January 2021 and the balcony doors were adjusted, but the operative did not report the need for any replacements. The landlord explained that its policy was to repair rather than replace, unless uneconomical to do so. It advised the resident that a contractor would contact her to discuss her current concerns with the windows.
  8. The resident asked to escalate the complaint on 6 February 2021 as she disputed that repair work was undertaken in January 2021. The resident denied that she had ever refused repairs and repeated her request to see a copy of the inspection report from 2020.
  9. As part of its complaint investigation the landlord received comments from the officer who inspected the property in 2020. He confirmed that he had agreed at the time for the windows to be “overhauled”, and that no replacements had been intended.
  10. The landlord issued its stage two response on 15 March 2021. It confirmed the appointment for 19 January 2021 was recorded on its system as completed and the operative who attended had supplied photographs of the repairs they had done. The landlord noted that an inspector conducted a telephone inspection with the resident on 9 March 2021 and discussed the issues she was experiencing. As a result, it agreed an appointment, in the week commencing 15 March 2021, to carry out the further repairs the inspector agreed (the repair records show this took place on 17 March 2021). The landlord confirmed its complaints process had been completed and included referral details for this Service.
  11. Following this, the resident contacted the landlord in March 2021 and said the contractor who attended came to inspect the window but she had heard nothing since. After investigating with its staff, the landlord determined it was satisfied that the agreed works had been carried out. In an email to the resident in June 2021 the landlord clarified its position. It advised the resident that it had agreed with its contractor that the windowsills in the property will not be replaced unless they are beyond economical repair. The landlord said its contractor advised that the windows were repaired and left in a serviceable condition. It advised the resident to contact it if she needed to report any further repairs.
  12. The resident contacted this Service as she said the balcony doors and windows still needed repairing. To put matters right she wanted the landlord to repair the balcony and windows, provide a copy of the original inspection report and award compensation.

Assessment and findings

  1. In the resident’s correspondence with this Service, she asked for an investigation into historical disrepairs since 2009. Under Paragraph 39(e) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, we will not consider complaints that were not brought to the attention of the landlord as a formal complaint within a reasonable period, which would normally be within six months of the matters arising. The resident also mentioned frequent water leaks from a bedroom ceiling. As this is a separate issue that did not form part of this complaint, this is not something that this Service can investigate at this stage, as the landlord needs to be provided with the opportunity to investigate and respond to this aspect. The resident will need to contact the landlord and, if appropriate, raise a separate complaint to get this matter resolved if she has not already done so.
  2. There is no dispute that the landlord is responsible for the repair and maintenance of the windows in the resident’s property.
  3. In response to the resident’s complaint that the landlord had not replaced faulty windows in her home, the landlord referred to its repair records and explained that repairs had been planned, but not replacements. It explained that its records state the resident declined the repairs, as she was waiting for the replacements she believed were coming. The evidence provided for this investigation supports the landlord’s explanation, both in the repair records, and in the repair inspector’s recollections. A landlord would usually only consider replacing windows following the recommendations of its contractors and operatives, and nothing in the evidence clearly indicates the landlord received such advice. Because of that, its response to the complaint, and to the resident’s request for replacements, was reasonable.
  4. The resident asked, in her complaints to the landlord and to the Ombudsman, to see the notes taken following the inspection in February 2020. The landlord provided the inspection records in an email to the resident on 18 January 2021. It is not clear whether the resident believes there are further records, but none have been seen in this investigation, and the recollections of the operative who attended the 2020 inspection are in accord with what the relevant repair records document i.e. that the windows were to be overhaled/repaired, not replaced. The landlord’s handling of the request was reasonable.
  5. In light of the resident’s ongoing concerns, it was appropriate for the landlord to arrange another inspection in March 2021, as the resident was not satisfied with the repairs done in January 2021. The repair records support the landlord’s explanation about the repairs done at the January appointment, and the telephone ‘inspection’ undertaken on 9 March identified further works were required. The landlord’s actions demonstrated that despite the disagreement about replacing the windows, the landlord remained resolution-focused in its approach and sought to progress and resolve the necessary work in line with its obligations.
  6. Following the landlord’s final complaint response and the contractor attending the resident’s home on 17 March 2021, it is clear there was disagreement between the landlord and resident regarding whether the repairs had been actioned. In an internal email dated 31 March 2021, the landlord’s repair inspector confirmed the contractor had completed the works as requested.
  7. Overall, at least in the period considered in this investigation, the landlord acted reasonably in its handling of the resident’s reports of repair issues. It took appropriate action to progress the necessary repairs in accordance with its repair obligations, and appropriately relied upon the opinions of its qualified staff that the work had been completed. The landlord explained to the resident that its policy was to repair rather than replace, and it was not seen in the evidence provided to this Service that the repair work was determined as being beyond repair. The landlord clearly communicated its position and advised the resident to report any further repairs. There is no evidence that the landlord ever decided the windows should be replaced, or that it agreed to such replacement with the resident.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Scheme, there was no maladministration by the landlord in respect of the complaint.

Recommendation

  1. While it is clear from the evidence that the landlord does not consider the windows to be suitable for replacement, the resident has made clear from her repair reports that she does not believe them to be in an acceptable state of repair. If it has not done so already, the landlord should, in the near future, consider conducting an assessment of the windows by its senior staff, in conjunction with the resident, to clarify what condition the landlord considers to be acceptable, and address any repair issues which it agrees still need resolution.