Nottingham City Homes Registered Provider Limited (202202491)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202202491

Nottingham City Homes Registered Provider Limited

4 November 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 resident’s window.
    2. The landlord’s handling of the associated complaint.

Background

  1. The resident is a leaseholder of the property. The property is on the third story of the building.
  2. On 03 January 2021, the resident contacted the landlord to report that a window in his property was hanging out and explained his concerns of the risks it posed due to being on the third floor. The resident called back twice the same day, and informed the landlord he had injured his back trying to secure the window. A contractor attended the same day, and secured the window in place but could not repair it. On 04 January 2021, contractors failed to attend the resident’s property. On 05 January 2021, contractors attended the property but could not repair the window due to the parts no longer being manufactured. On 21 January 2021, the landlord advised that the window replacement had been raised to the supplier, and a survey needed to take place.
  3. The resident raised a stage one complaint on 28 January 2021. He provided the landlord with a timeline of events and advised he was dissatisfied with the missed appointment, that he had been provided with incorrect information, and had received poor customer service from a staff member.
  4. The resident continued to chase the landlord for updates on the repairs, and contacted his local MP to assist him with this. The landlord advised on 01 April 2021 that an order had been placed for the window replacement and, on 08 May, it ordered scaffolding needed for the property in order for the replacement to go ahead.
  5. The landlord acknowledged the stage one complaint on 17 May 2021. It responded on 20 May 2021 and apologised for the delays in repairing the resident’s window. It advised it was following its processes and informed the resident that scaffolding had now been arranged.
  6. The window was replaced on 28 May 2021.
  7. In the initial complaint escalation on 05 June 2021, the resident advised he was not satisfied that the complaint had been investigated fully due to the vague summary. The landlord did not escalate the complaint as it believed there was insufficient grounds to do so.
  8. On 06 December 2021, the resident chased the stage two response. The landlord initially stated that it had no record of the resident’s complaint escalation. Following the resident providing a copy of the escalation, it then informed the resident that requesting compensation was not grounds for a complaint escalation and that everything had been addressed. The resident stated that the missed appointment had not been addressed, along with conflicting information in relation to the repairs being referred to the contractor, the service provided by a particular staff member, the inadequate summary in the stage one response, that the landlord stated it did not receive correspondence despite the letters being signed for on delivery, and the repair delays. The resident was also dissatisfied with the landlord’s complaint handling. The resident requested to escalate the complaint again on 13 December 2021 as he was unhappy that not all the issues he had raised had been adequately addressed.
  9. The landlord escalated the complaint on 14 December 2021, and responded on 10 January 2022. It apologised for not attending the appointment and advised it had been rearranged but it had failed to communicate this. It apologised for the lack of communication throughout, stated that the delayed repairs were due to manufacturer delays, and apologised for any incorrect information provided. It informed the resident that to put things right it had improved its mail management processes, and implemented a new system for tracking call backs and addressed the service provided by a particular staff member. It advised it had also paid the £312 compensation requested by the resident.
  10. The resident escalated his complaint to this Service on 06 May 2022. He was dissatisfied with his loss of pay due to taking days off work when the appointments were not attended, and that he had hurt his back trying to secure the window. He was unhappy with the loss of heat during this period, the fire hazard it posed, and the mould on the window frame. He was also dissatisfied with the way he was treated and the landlord’s complaint handling. The resident is seeking further compensation.

Assessment and findings

Scope of Investigation

  1. The resident has referenced how the landlord’s handling of the repairs has impacted his physical and mental health. However, the Ombudsman cannot draw conclusions on the causation of, or liability for, impacts on health and wellbeing. This is more appropriate to be dealt with through the courts as a personal injury claim. The courts can call on medical experts and make legally binding judgements. Nonetheless, consideration has been given to the general distress and inconvenience which the situation may have caused the resident. This is an accordance with paragraph 42(g) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme which says the Ombudsman may not investigate complaints which concern matters where the Ombudsman considers it quicker, fairer, more reasonable or more effective to seek a remedy through the courts.

Policies and Procedures

  1. The landlord’s Emergency repairs guidance stated that emergency repairs are completed within 24 hours, and include any repair necessary to keep the property secure.
  2. The landlord’s repairs and maintenance service standards states that it will complete planned works, such as replacing windows, within 90 working days.
  3. The landlord’s repairs service standards state that it will:
    1. Keep residents informed about anything which affects their home
    2. Provide information that is clear, and easy to understand
  4. The landlord’s complaints policy states that a stage one response will be sent within 10 working days. It states that if a resident is unhappy with the response, they can request an escalation and that this will be reviewed and details provided for either an acknowledgement of the escalation or a refusal. It states that a stage two response will be sent within 20 working days.

The landlord’s handling of repairs to the resident’s window

  1. Following the resident’s initial report on 03 January 2021, the landlord treated the work as an emergency repair and arranged for a contractor to attend the same day. The contractor secured the window but could not replace it. This was appropriate and in line with the landlord’s emergency repairs guidance as it was made safe within 24 hours. Whilst this Service acknowledges the inconvenience caused by the landlord not being able to repair the window on the day due to the parts not being available, the main priority was to secure the property and minimise any risks, which it did. It is reasonable that some repairs cannot be completed within one day.
  2. Following this, an appointment was made for 04 January 2021, but was missed by the contractors on the day. The landlord advised in its stage two response that this appointment was rearranged on the day due to other appointments at a higher risk level being booked in. Whilst this reasoning is understandable, the landlord failed to communicate this with the resident and did not comply with its repairs policy which states that it would keep residents informed and provide clear information. The landlord acknowledged within its stage two response that it should have communicated better with the resident about this.
  3. The resident has informed this Service that throughout the repairs process, he regularly contacted the landlord and contractor to chase updates, such as, on 12 January 2021 and 21 January, and often had to explain the timeline of events again, and was provided with conflicting information. This is evidence of poor record-keeping from the landlord. The Ombudsman would expect a landlord to keep a robust record of contacts and repairs, yet the evidence has not been comprehensive in this case. It is vital that landlords keep clear, accurate and easily accessible records to ensure their repairs service s responsive and evidence based. The evidence also provides an audit trail. If we investigate a complaint, we will ask for the landlord’s records. If there is disputed evidence and no audit trail, we may not be able to conclude that an action took place or that the landlord followed its own policies and procedures.
  4. Following this, the resident continued to chase the landlord for updates on the repair. The landlord advised in its stage two response that on 21 January 2021, the order was placed with the supplier for the window, and a survey needed to take place. There was no evidence provided to this Service of the survey taking place; therefore, we were unable to determine whether the survey took place within an appropriate timeframe.
  5. The landlord has advised that the window order was placed on 01 April 2021, and scaffolding was ordered on 08 May 2021. It advised that this delay was due to the manufacturer and was impacted by the Coronavirus pandemic. It also advised that the standard delivery time for manufacturing a window is within four to six weeks; but, due to the delays, this replacement was completed within eight weeks, on 28 May 2021. This Service does acknowledge the impact that the pandemic had, and that sometimes, delays outside of the landlord’s control may occur. Whilst the eight weeks was compliant with the landlord’s timeframe for completing planned works, the landlord would be expected to communicate these delays to the resident. The landlord failed to do this, which resulted in the resident having to chase the landlord regularly. The landlord did acknowledge in its stage two response that it should have communicated better with the resident in relation to the delays.
  6. Similarly, the landlord acknowledged and apologised for several failings throughout its stage two response, such as: the resident being provided with incorrect information, delays in the replacement of the window, and its logistical management of mail. In cases where a landlord has acknowledged failings, it is the Ombudsman’s role to assess whether a landlord has adequately addressed these failings, learnt from its mistakes, and provided redress in line with the Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles: be fair, put things right and learn from outcomes.
  7. The complaint process, and any responses, is as much a part of the landlord’s service as its repairs process. Therefore the Ombudsman’s assessment must consider the landlord’s actions under all of its processes.
  8. Whilst the landlord acknowledged some the resident’s concerns, it failed to adequately understand and address specific issues. One example is the resident’s dissatisfaction with the service provided by a staff member. Whilst the landlord apologised that the resident was unhappy with the service, and advised that feedback had been provided at the time, it failed to address that the resident had been told the staff member had sent communication to the business advising not to put the resident through to them. It would have been appropriate for the landlord to fully investigate and address the resident’s specific concerns.
  9. Likewise, there were also occasions where the landlord failed to address particular issues at all, such as the resident’s reports of the condition of the window being a fire hazard. At the time, he was advised by the landlord that it was a hypothetical risk, and if it was to happen to break through it. However it would be reasonable to expect the landlord to arrange a review of the existing surveys or to arrange a new survey by an appropriate person to respond to the resident’s concerns. Any concern about a fire risk is a hypothetical risk therefore the landlord’s response was inadequate.
  10. Whilst the landlord has confirmed that it paid the £312 in compensation, as requested in the resident’s claim – for inconvenience, dissatisfaction, and costs in relation to the complaint – and it also apologised for failing to address some of the issues during its stage one response, and for its lack of communication throughout the repairs and replacement of the resident’s window; it failed to appropriately address all of the resident’s concerns. Therefore, this constitutes service failure.
  11. The Ombudsman recommends £100 to £600 for complaints where a landlord has acknowledged some of its failings but failed to address the detriment to the resident. Whilst the landlord did acknowledge its failings in a lack of communication, delays and misinformation being provided to the resident, it failed to address all of the resident’s concerns. This would be classed as a low impact failing under section 4.2 of the landlord’s compensation policy, and this is in line with the Remedies Guidance provided by this Service.

 The landlord’s handling of the associated complaint

  1. The resident raised his complaint on 28 January 2021, and this was not acknowledged by the landlord until 17 May 2021. Whilst the landlord had initially advised it did not receive the complaint, it discovered that this was due to its mail handling processes that had to move to working from home throughout the pandemic, which it did address as part of the resident’s complaint. Nevertheless, the acknowledgement was sent 75 working days after the complaint being raised, and the stage one response was sent 78 working days later on 20 May 2021. This was outside of the appropriate timeframe as provided in the landlord’s complaints policy, and the guidance within the Complaint Handling Code as provided by this Service.
  2. Once the resident had advised the landlord on 27 April 2021 that he had lodged the formal complaint in January 2021, it should have taken 27 April 2021 as the date the complaint was lodged, and therefore responded by 12 May 2021. The stage one response was sent on 20 May 2021, this was six days outside the stage one response timeframe as listed in its complaints policy, though the delay would have had no significant impact on the resident.
  3. Similarly, the resident initially requested for the complaint to be escalated on 05 June 2021. The resident received no communication regarding the complaint until he chased the response on 13 December 2021. This was 135 working days following the escalation request, and was outside of any reasonable timeframe. On 13 December 2021, the landlord advised that it believed the resident did not have grounds for an escalation as he had only asked for compensation; therefore, his complaint was passed to a different department, in order to begin a claim. The resident disputed this and advised of further reasoning for the escalation, which the landlord accepted on 14 December 2021. Following this, the landlord sent its stage two response on 10 January 2022. This was 16 working days from the complaint acknowledgement and was in line with its complaint handling process.
  4.  The landlord informed the resident that it has implemented new mail handling processes to avoid mail being missed in the future. The landlord also explained the reasoning for the delays, and advised a new call back strategy had been implemented to improve communication. The landlord acknowledged that it had misunderstood the resident’s escalation request; but once aware of the outcome sought by the resident, it rectified its previous mistake and escalated the complaint, which it then upheld and offered compensation for.
  5. For the reasons set out above, the landlord has made redress to the resident which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, resolves the complaint satisfactorily. The measures taken by the landlord to redress what went wrong were proportionate to the impact that its failures had on the resident.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure by the landlord in way the landlord handled the repairs to the resident’s window.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 53 (b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord has made an offer of redress prior to investigation which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, resolves the complaint regarding the landlord’s handling of the associated complaint satisfactorily.

Orders

  1. The landlord is ordered to pay the resident a further £100 compensation to acknowledge the inconvenience. This should be paid within four weeks of the date of this letter.