South Tyneside Council (202115896)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202115896

South Tyneside Council

4 July 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:
    1. The landlord’s handling of repairs to the garden path at the property.
    2. The landlord’s handling of repairs to the property’s stairs and floorboards.
    3. The landlord’s complaints handling.

Background

  1. The resident occupies the property, a 3-bedroom house, under a secure tenancy agreement with the landlord.
  2. Between March and June 2021, the resident reported repairs required to his garden path and to the stairs and floorboards within the property. The landlord raised works orders for each repair, arranged an inspection of the garden path and agreed an appointment for a joiner to attend the stairs and floorboards.
  3. The resident emailed the landlord on 14 June 2021 to complain that the joiner had failed to attend. He sent a further email complaining that the landlord had not followed-up on the works to his garden path since an inspection on 26 March 2021. As the resident did not receive a response to his complaints within 10 working days, he sent an escalation request to the landlord.
  4. In its initial complaint response, the landlord acknowledged that it had missed the appointment and apologised for the inconvenience. It provided contact details for the resident to rearrange the works for a convenient date. The landlord’s final complaint response addressed the missed appointment, the delays in completing the works, a failure to adhere to the resident’s contact preferences, the delay in providing the stage 1 response and the resident’s general concerns about the landlord’s repairs service. The complaint was partially upheld, as the landlord agreed it had missed the appointment and the stage 1 complaint deadline but found no service failure in its handling of the repairs to the path. The landlord apologised and the resident was offered £60 compensation.

Assessment and findings

Handling of repairs to garden path

  1. The landlord’s Repairs and Maintenance Policy states that ‘planned repairs’, which are defined as, ‘non-urgent failed or damaged items that do not adversely affect your use of the home’, should be completed within 3 months. ‘Planned maintenance’, including deferred repairs where the landlord has planned to replace an item in the near future, or where it is more cost-effective or efficient to delay a repair, will be completed on a programme specific timescale. 
  2. The resident first reported repairs required to his garden path on 5 March 2021 and a job order was raised by the landlord that day. On 26 March 2021, the landlord’s operative attended to inspect and logged a job to renew a section of uneven pathway. The landlord’s repairs records from the inspection state that the pathway was a tripping hazard.
  3. The landlord states that the resident was informed that as ‘planned works’ the repairs had a target completion timeframe of 6 months. The Ombudsman notes that this was in excess of the 3-month target set out in the landlord’s policy for planned repairs to damaged items. The landlord’s surveyors and operatives are best placed to determine the urgency of works, however, as the path was noted to be a trip-hazard, the Ombudsman would have expected the landlord to prioritise the works within its planned repairs timeframe.
  4. There is no evidence that the landlord followed-up to arrange an appointment to complete these works until receipt of the resident’s complaint of 14 June 2021. However, this was not unreasonable as it was still within the 3-month timeframe for completing the works, albeit only just.
  5. The landlord states that at a second inspection by the planned works team, an appointment was agreed with the resident’s daughter to complete the works on 14 July 2021. The resident disputes this, stating that his daughter was informed that the works would be completed in 3 weeks, but no specific date was given. This inspection is not recorded in the landlord’s repairs log and there are no notes to reflect what was agreed with the resident’s daughter. In future the landlord should ensure that full and accurate details of appointments are included in its notes.
  6. The landlord has provided evidence that on 14 July 2021 its contractor attended to carry out the works but was unable to gain access. The landlord states that the works were then completed on 5 and 6 August 2021.
  7. The Ombudsman is satisfied on the evidence available that there was no maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the works to the resident’s garden path. Although there was some miscommunication about the date the works would be completed, and the landlord’s records should have been more comprehensive, it did make an attempt to complete the works within the 6-month timeframe initially advised.
  8. The resident confirmed to this Service on 1 November 2021 that the path works had been completed, however, in an email dated 2 January 2022 he reported that some works to the garden path were outstanding. The Ombudsman understands that some follow-up works were required to remove rubble and backfill the topsoil after the path was laid. It is understood that this has now been completed. Should the resident have further concerns about the time taken by the landlord to complete these follow-on works, this should be raised with the landlord as a new complaint.

Handling of repairs to property’s stairs and floorboards

  1. On receipt of the resident’s report of repairs required to the stairs and floorboards an appointment was made for a joiner to attend on 14 June 2021, which was within the landlord’s 20 working day target timeframe for routine repairs. The landlord has acknowledged that it missed this appointment, provided an explanation to the resident as to why it failed to attend, apologised, and offered £30 compensation. This was a reasonable and proportionate response to the resident’s concerns.
  2. In its stage 1 response the landlord asked the resident to get in touch to make a new appointment. Its Responsive Repairs Manager also attempted to contact the resident by telephone to rearrange the works. Although the Ombudsman notes the resident’s stated preference for email contact, there is no record that he had asked the landlord not to telephone him, and so its actions were reasonable and in line with its usual practices. The landlord has now removed the resident’s telephone numbers from its records at his request, demonstrating that it has listened to his concerns.
  3. The landlord’s records show that on 30 July 2021, the date of the final complaint response, a job was raised to complete the stairs and floorboard works. The same job was then re-raised on 6 August 2021. The landlord has confirmed to this Service that the works to the stairs and floorboards were completed on 4 and 11 August 2021, although these visits are not recorded in its repairs logs or system notes. The resident stated on 2 January 2022 that although a joiner did attend, they had not repaired all affected floorboards. It is therefore recommended that the landlord contact the resident by email to determine what works remain outstanding and arrange for these to be completed.
  4. Following the missed appointment on 14 June 2021 and receipt of the formal complaint, the landlord did not attempt to contact the resident to rearrange the repairs until 29 June 2021. The landlord could have been more proactive in attempting to resolve this aspect of the complaint by emailing the resident to arrange another appointment. The works were not completed until almost 2 months after the missed appointment, however, as there is no evidence that the resident contacted the landlord as requested in the stage 1 response, the Ombudsman will not make an additional finding of service failure for the delay. The Ombudsman considers that the landlord’s apology and the £30 compensation offered at stage 2 are sufficient to address the failings identified.

Complaints handling

  1. In his stage 2 escalation request the resident complained that the landlord had failed to meet its 10-working day target timeframe for providing a response. He also noted that the stage 1 response had then been provided the same day the landlord received his escalation request. The landlord agreed that the stage 1 response was a day late and explained that this was because it had attempted to contact him by phone on the day the complaint response was due to rearrange the repair. The landlord acknowledged that its response was provided outside its published timescales and offered the resident £30 compensation.
  2. As the complaint response was only a day late, which caused no detriment to the resident, the Ombudsman considers that the landlord was not obliged to offer compensation. Its willingness to do so demonstrates that it wanted to put things right for the resident and to restore trust and confidence in its processes.
  3. The landlord’s stage 1 response did not address the resident’s complaint about its failure to complete the works to the garden path. The resident believed that this should have been raised as a separate complaint, as he had raised it independently of his concerns about the stairs and floorboard repair. The Ombudsman will not ordinarily object to the landlord combining complaints and providing a single response where it is reasonable to do so, provided the resident is kept informed. Although the landlord overlooked the complaint about the garden path at stage 1, this was rectified at stage 2 and a full response provided. Whilst the Ombudsman recognises that the resident was put to the additional inconvenience of escalating his concerns, the £30 already offered represents sufficient redress.

 

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Scheme there was no maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the repairs to the resident’s garden path.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 55(b) of the Scheme, the landlord has made an offer of redress to the resident which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion satisfactorily resolves the resident’s complaint about its handling of repairs to the property’s stairs and floorboards.
  3. In accordance with paragraph 55(b) of the Scheme, the landlord has made an offer of redress to the resident which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, satisfactorily resolves the resident’s concerns about the landlord’s complaints handling.

Recommendations

  1. It is recommended that the landlord:
    1. Contact the resident by email or letter to determine what, if any, floorboard repairs remain outstanding and arrange for these to be completed.
    2. Review its record keeping processes to ensure that all repair visits are logged and include comprehensive notes from its operative or contractor.