Islington Council (202100013)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202100013

Islington Council

31 March 2022

The complaint

1. The resident is complaining about:

1. The landlord’s response to his reports of scaffolding being erected outside and causing damage to his property.
2. The related complaint handling.

Background

2. The resident is a leaseholder of the landlord. The resident resides at a three-bedroom property with a ground floor level entrance.
3. The resident raised concerns on 9 February 2021 and then again in an email on 12 February 2021, regarding the scaffolding that was erected outside his property on 9 December 2020.
4. The resident mentioned that he wasn’t notified that the scaffolding would be erected in front of his property. He mentioned that when it was erected, it displaced his guttering and exposed a rooftile allowing rainwater to pour down his wall and onto the footpath.
5. Works were raised on 24 February 2021 for an operative to attend and inspect the resident’s property.
6. The landlord responded to the resident’s complaint at Stage 1 on 5 March 2021. In its response, it detailed that the scaffolding was erected to resolve a leak affecting a neighbouring property, the works were delayed due to Covid-19 restrictions and as an operative was unable to attend due to personal circumstances. The landlord apologised for the inconvenience caused and informed the resident that most of the works had been completed and would be inspected by the roofing team before the scaffolding is struck. The scaffolding was subsequently taken down on 20 March 2021.
7. An operative attended the resident’s property on 31 March 2021 to carry out an inspection, but no defects were found.
8. The resident said that the contractor sent him a photo of the guttering and informed him that the photo was taken pre-inspection, he carried out a date search and the image showed that the photo was taken on 31 March 2021 and not at the pre-inspection date.  A further appointment was made for a contractor to attend the resident’s property on 6 April 2021 and the resident advised the contractor did not attend that day.  The resident was also unhappy that the contractor had his contact details.
9. On 8 April 2021, the landlord responded to concerns the resident’s Councillor had raised on his behalf. It detailed that the contractor was provided with the resident’s contact details by the landlord and that contractors are properly vetted to work for the landlord. The landlord clarified that it adheres to strict data protection policies and provided a link to its website regarding this.
10. It explained that the scaffolding holes were plugged and there were no defects to the guttering as determined by the inspection carried out on 31 March 2021. The response included the photos that were on the landlord’s system. The landlord confirmed the photos were reviewed by the team leader alongside the photo provided by the repairs contractor and found that they were consistent with the photo that was taken pre-inspection dated 2 December 2020. The landlord found that there were no outstanding works that needed to be completed. The landlord informed the Councillor that its contractors will continue to carry out all allocated work when required.
11. The resident raised additional concerns relating to staff conduct and this was addressed by the landlord in its letter dated 16 April 2021. The resident hasn’t brought this matter to the Ombudsman Service.
12. The resident escalated his concerns to his MP, Councillor and Chief Executive Office and this was addressed by the landlord.
13. The landlord explained that the scaffolding was located near to the area that required repairing and an assessment considered the safety of both residents and operatives. In relation to the alleged damage to the resident’s property, an inspection was carried out and no defects were found to the guttering or the wall. The landlord gave details about who to contact when reporting repairs in the first instance.
14. The landlord detailed that the resident was required to pay for buildings insurance as it is their obligation as a leaseholder. The response also explained that contactors having details of the resident is permissible as they are vetted and follow strict policies set by the council. The landlord also advised that the contractor had to contact the resident to resolve the issues the resident raised in his stage 1 complaint. The landlord partially upheld the complaint and apologised for the inconvenience caused by the contractor not turning up and the conduct of the case officer. The landlord emphasised that the scaffolding process was followed correctly.
15. The resident subsequently brought their complaint to this Service on 10 April 2021. This Service wrote to the landlord on 29 April and 4 May 2021 requesting a Stage 2 response. The landlord explained it had a backlog of complaints and offered £50 compensation in recognition of the delay. The landlord sent its Stage 2 response on 15 October 2021.
16. The landlord apologised for the delay in investigating the complaint and offered a total of £75 compensation in recognition of this.
17. The landlord acknowledged that the scaffolding was erected without the resident’s prior knowledge and the works were delayed due to the Covid-19 restrictions. The landlord apologised for the blocking of the sunlight that this caused. The landlord informed the resident that the pre-inspection photo taken on 2 December 2020 is consistent with the photo taken on 31 March 2021 after the scaffolding was removed. In addition, an operative attended the resident’s property and confirmed that no defects were found and therefore no further works were required. The landlord directed the tenant to contact it repairs team if he recently experienced rain running down the walls or defects to his guttering.
18. The landlord did not uphold the complaint as it was satisfied with the partial uphold that was concluded at Stage 1.

Assessment and findings

19. When investigating this complaint, the Service has reviewed the call notes, email communications, photographs, policies, landlord’s responses, and the resident’s communications.
20. On 2 December 2020, scaffolding was erected outside the resident’s property to resolve the leak coming from the neighbour’s property, the scaffolding was erected without the resident’s prior knowledge. Whilst it is good practice to advise the resident that scaffolding is due to be erected there is no evidence that the resident raised concerns at the time in December 2020. The resident made a formal complaint in February 2021 about the damage to his guttering and roof tile and advised that he had been affected by the lack of sunlight into his property. The landlord explained that an assessment had been carried out as to where the scaffolding was located, this would’ve likely caused an inconvenience to the resident and effecting the sunlight would have been inevitable.However the landlord accepted that the scaffolding was erected for a prolonged period, the scaffolding was erected for around 14 weeks and the landlord did not offer any level of compensation in relation to the inconvenience. To add, the landlord didn’t provide the resident with prior notification of the repair works which is considered to be reasonable practice.
21. The landlord informed the resident that there were delays regarding the completion of the works to repair the leak. This was because of the Covid-19 restrictions and operatives not being able to turn up to the job due to personal reasons. As the landlord had to erect scaffolding to complete the repairs there was inevitably going to be some inconvenienced caused to the residents, the landlord has explained why there was a delay in completing the repairs which meant the scaffolding was in place between 9 December 2020 and 20 March 2021, a period of over 14 weeks. It is accepted that the Covid-19 restrictions and lockdown was having an impact on the completion of repairs, however there is a failure in the landlord’s communication with the resident as it did not inform him that the scaffolding was necessary or keep him informed of when the scaffolding would be removed. This meant the resident had to contact the landlord to find out what was happening and resulted in a formal complaint about the issues.
22. In relation to the damage to the resident’s guttering and roof tile.The resident initially raised the issue on 12 February 2021, the landlord subsequently arranged for an operative to attend the resident’s property and carry out an inspection which was a reasonable approach to establishing if there were any defects that the landlord was responsible for repairing. Following on from this inspection the landlord found that there were no defects.
23. The landlord sent the resident a photograph of the property after the inspection dated 31 March 2021, it noted that this was consistent with the photo that was taken pre-inspection on 2 December 2020. It has relied on this evidence to confirm the scaffolding did not cause damage to the guttering or the roof. Whilst the resident disputes the validity of the photo taken on
    31 March 2021, the landlord has investigated this issue and explained why the photos are authentic.  The landlord was proactive in sending an operative out to inspect the damage and found that there was no defects. Therefore the landlord handled this reasonably.

The landlord’s complaint handling

24. According to the landlord’s complaint’s policy, a complaint should be dealt with as quickly as possible and no longer than 10 working days. The policy states that emphasis should always be placed on resolving complaints at the earliest possible stage of the process. In this complaint, the resident complained multiple times about this matter, escalated this to his MP and Councillor.
25. Looking at the responses from the landlord, it responded to multiple correspondence about the matter both from the MP and Councillor and was consistent in providing quality and detailed responses, responding to the concerns of the resident in a timely manner. However it was clear that the resident remained unhappy with the responses from the landlord and therefore the complaint should’ve been escalated to Stage 2 at an earlier time than it did.
26. The landlord has been consistent in addressing the delays and the subsequent inconvenience that was caused because of this. The landlord has apologised for the delay in investigating the complaint and has offered £75 compensation in recognition of this. This is a reasonable amount for the inconvenience caused.

Determination

27. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was a service failure by the landlord in its handling of the scaffolding being erected outside and causing damage to the resident’s property.
28. In accordance with paragraph 55b of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord has offered reasonable redress to the service failures identified in the landlord’s handling of the complaint.

Reasons

29. The resident wasn’t notified about the scaffolding prior to it being erected and the scaffolding was up for a prolonged period of time which caused inconvenience to the resident. The landlord was proactive in sending an operative out to inspect the property and compared the photographs it had on its systems and found that the photograph was consistent with the pre-inspection image.
30. The landlord has accepted that there were delays in its complaints handling, apologised and as such has compensated the resident £75 in recognition of this.

Orders

31. The landlord to pay the resident a compensation of £150 compensation, made up of:

1. £100 in recognition of the inconvenience caused by the prolonged period of time the scaffolding was up
2. £50 for the lack of notice and updates regarding the erection of the scaffolding

.