Riverside Housing Co-operative (Redditch) Limited (202204443)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202204443

Riverside Housing Co-operative (Redditch) Limited

17 January 2023


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:
    1. response to the resident’s reports of a draught impacting his property;
    2. complaints handling.

Background

  1. The resident is a secure tenant at the property of the landlord. The landlord is a local authority. The resident has informed this service that he has health concerns which were exacerbated by the draught in his property. The landlord’s record of vulnerabilities noted that contractors should allow extra time for him to answer the phone or door, and should knock loudly.
  2. On 17 January 2022, the resident reported that concrete had fallen off the gable wall on one side of the property and that he was experiencing a draught. The landlord attended on 19 January 2022 and rendered the concrete on the gable wall. The landlord arranged for a further visit on 18 March 2022 to carry out further rendering and repointing, however, its plasterer attended the appointment instead of its bricklayer. The works were subsequently rearranged for 24 March 2022.
  3. The resident raised a formal complaint on 18 March 2022, due to the plasterer attending the appointment rather than a bricklayer which had delayed the repair. He later added that he was happy with the works which had been proposed by the landlord but was dissatisfied about the length of time it was taking for the works to be completed. The resident was seeking for the repairs to be completed and compensation for the delays which had occurred.
  4. Between March and April 2022, follow on works to the gable end of the property continued, and mortar was raked out and repointed. In addition, an inspection of the skirting boards in the property was carried out. The contractor found the skirting boards to be in good condition. On each occasion, the resident reported that the draught in the property had not been resolved. On 30 May 2022, a contractor attended and found no further issues with the gable end of the property and closed the job. The contractor advised the resident that the draught may have been coming from the windows in the property, but the resident did not consider this to be the case.
  5. In the landlord’s formal responses, it apologised for the incorrect contractor having attended. It stated that this was due to the job being raised with the incorrect code and informed the resident that it had provided feedback to the relevant department. It also apologised to the resident as it had not initially raised one of the works which were identified on 27 April 2022, and confirmed that it had provided feedback internally. It explained that since it had completed the works needed to repoint the gable end of the property on 19 May 2022, and the property was inspected again, the resident had agreed to close the complaint as no further works were identified. The landlord reassured the resident that the property did have cavity wall insulation as listed on the EPC for the property. Furthermore, it acknowledged that the resident disputed that the cause of the draught was the windows in the property, but acknowledged that the resident had stated that he would be asking for the windows to be inspected.
  6. The resident escalated his complaint to this service on 6 June 2022 as he was unhappy that his complaint had been closed. He was also dissatisfied as he stated that wind blew under the skirting boards in the property and stated that due to this, his lounge was cold. He also advised this service that investigations into the draught had no resolution and he disagreed that the draught was from the windows. In addition, he was dissatisfied with the landlord’s complaint handling timeframes. The resident informed this service that he had to put his heating on to counteract the draught, and was unable to enjoy his property. The resident is seeking for the draught to be resolved, and to receive compensation for the inconvenience caused.

Assessment and findings

Scope of Investigation

  1. The resident informed this service that he had to use the heating in his property to counteract the draught. It is therefore plausible that due to this, the resident would have incurred additional costs as he was using an increased amount of energy. As this issue had not been raised to the landlord, it is not something that this service can adjudicate on at this stage, as this was not raised as part of the initial complaint and 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.

Draught

  1. The landlord’s responsive repairs policy states that the landlord is responsible for repairs to external walls and windows. It states that a routine repair should be completed within 28 days.
  2. The resident initially reported the issue on 17 January 2022. It is not disputed that the issue was not resolved until 30 May 2022.
  3. It should be noted that the Ombudsman is unable to conclusively determine where the draught originated from. This is because the Ombudsman does not have the resources to attend the property and complete an expert inspection. Instead, this investigation will focus on the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports and consider whether its actions were in line with its policies, procedures and with best practice.
  4. Throughout the period of the complaint, the landlord attempted to resolve the issue on several occasions such as 19 January 2022 and 7 March 2022. It should be noted that it can take more than one attempt to resolve issues such as draughts as it can be difficult to identify the cause of the issue at the outset and in some cases different repairs may need to be attempted before the matter is resolved. This would not necessarily constitute a service failure by the landlord as the landlord was entitled to rely on the opinions of its qualified staff and contractors when deciding what works to undertake.
  5. During this time, there were some delays which were outside of the landlord’s control, such as on 28 February 2022 when works were rearranged due to the weather. On this occasion, the landlord acted appropriately by updating the resident and providing him with a new date for the works. Nevertheless, there were times where the delays that occurred were within the landlord’s control, such as on 24 January 2022 where the works had been passed to a supervisor but were not subsequently actioned, and on 18 March 2022 when there was a further delay due to an incorrect operative attending the job. The Ombudsman notes that the landlord apologised to the resident for the incorrect operative attending. However, these delays were avoidable and were likely to have caused some frustration for the resident who was awaiting a resolution.
  6. Following further reports from the resident on 5 April 2022, it was appropriate for the landlord to arrange an inspection of the skirting boards as he believed that this was where the draught was originating from. The contractor found that the skirting boards were newly fitted with no gaps and as such, believed there was no correlation between the draught and the skirting boards. A landlord is entitled to rely on the advice of its qualified staff and it was therefore reasonable that the landlord concluded that there were no issues with the skirting boards in the property. The landlord’s qualified staff had taken appropriate actions to investigate the gable end and skirting boards before concluding that there was no draught entering the property in this way, and it was therefore reasonable for the landlord to believe the issue had been resolved.
  7. However, the resident continued to report a draught in the property and on 27 April 2022, the landlord identified further pointing works that needed to be completed which had been missed previously. It was appropriate for the landlord to apologise that these works were not identified initially, and it showed some learning due to this as it raised feedback about the error to the relevant team. Despite this, it failed to acknowledge the detriment that this had on the resident as there was a missed opportunity to complete the repair at an earlier date. In addition, it would appear that, at this point, the repointing works on the gable end of the property were not resolving the ongoing draught and as such, it may have been helpful for the landlord to consider other potential causes. Nevertheless, it was reasonable for the landlord to arrange for the works to be completed.
  8. The resident was first informed that the issue could be a result of the windows on 30 May 2022. Whilst it is noted that the resident disagreed with the diagnosis, the landlord would be expected to arrange for works to be carried out as identified by its staff. Furthermore, it would have been appropriate for the landlord to arrange an inspection of the windows at this time to ensure that works had progressed as the works to the gable end of the property had not resolved the issue.
  9. The Ombudsman notes that the landlord stated on 31 May 2022 that the resident had informed it that he would be raising an inspection for the windows. However, it would have been appropriate for the landlord to have acted proactively and to have raised this itself, especially when considering the length of time that had passed without a resolution. It remains unclear from the evidence provided as to whether the windows have since been inspected or further remedial works have been carried out.
  10. While the Ombudsman acknowledges that the landlord apologised for the delays caused by the incorrect operative attending and for works being only partially identified initially, it failed to consider a reasonable level of compensation to provide redress for the impact this had on the resident. This amounted to service failure in the circumstances, for which compensation of £150 is appropriate to reflect the impact on the resident.
  11. In addition, an order has been made for the landlord to contact the resident to determine if he is still experiencing issues with the draught, and if so, for it to provide a timeframe for it to complete a further inspection.

Complaints handling

  1. The landlord’s complaints policy states that its complaint process consists of two stages, and that a stage one response should be provided within 10 working days and a stage two response should be provided within 20 working days. The Complaint Handling Code provided by this service sets out the Ombudsman’s expectations for a landlord’s complaint handling. It states that a 10-working day timeframe for a stage one response and a 20-working day timeframe for a stage two response is appropriate.
  2. The resident was dissatisfied with the landlord’s complaint handling, in particular with the timeframe in which it took to respond. The resident informed this service that his stage one complaint was raised on 16 December 2021. However, the landlord informed this service that the complaint was first raised on 18 March 2022. In cases where there is a dispute about a date or event that took place, the Ombudsman uses the evidence provided in order to conclude whether the landlord took appropriate actions which were in line with its policies and procedures.
  3. In this case, the landlord has provided its complaint records to this service, which note that the complaint was raised on 18 March 2022. In addition, the stage one complaint was about the landlord sending an incorrect operative to an appointment. The appointment in question was on 18 March 2022 and therefore it would not be plausible for the complaint to have been raised prior to this date. Therefore, the Ombudsman is satisfied that the stage one complaint was raised on 18 March 2022. The Ombudsman does not dispute that the resident may have been in contact with the landlord from 16 December 2021, but such contact could not had formed the basis for the formal complaint.
  4. Following the formal complaint, the landlord provided a stage one response on 21 March 2022. This was within one working day and was therefore in line with its complaints policy. The resident then escalated his complaint on 21 April 2022 and the landlord provided the stage two response on 31 May 2022. This was a total of 27 working days which was seven days outside of the appropriate timeframe for a stage two response, as per the landlord’s complaints policy. The landlord failed to acknowledge this delay in its response, and moreover, it had not effectively managed the resident’s expectations prior to the response by providing a holding response or updated timeframe. This would have been frustrating for the resident who was waiting for a resolution to his complaint.
  5. The Ombudsman notes that the landlord had completed the works on 30 May 2022, before providing its stage two response on 31 May 2022 and confirming the complaint had been closed. It is not necessary to wait for a repair to be completed before responding to a complaint. A complaint response could have been issued while the repairs were outstanding, and the landlord could have considered delays which had taken place and those which are expected, based on the proposed completion date.
  6. The resident has expressed his concern that the landlord informed him it had ‘closed’ his complaint. Given, however, that the complaint had completed the landlord’s internal complaints procedure, it was in accordance with the landlord’s policies and what the Ombudsman considers to be best practice for it to close its complaint. This then allows a resident to refer a complaint to this service.
  7. In summary, the landlord had acted in line with its policies and the Complaint Handling Code when handling the resident’s stage one complaint. However, the landlord failed to comply with its policies and the Code when dealing with the resident’s stage two response. Whilst the stage two response was only delayed by seven working days, this would have been frustrating for the resident, and in the absence of an updated timeframe or explanation for the delay, amounted to service failure. In the circumstances, an amount of £50 compensation is appropriate to reflect the impact on the resident.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure by the landlord for its:
    1. response to the resident’s reports of a draught impacting his property;
    2. complaints handling.

Orders

  1. Within four weeks, the landlord is ordered to pay the resident £200 compensation, which is made up of:
    1. £150 for the distress and inconvenience caused by delays in resolving the draught in the resident’s property.
    2. £50 for the delays in its handling of the complaint.
  2. The landlord is also ordered to contact the resident within four weeks of this determination and enquire as to whether he is still experiencing issues with draughts. If the resident reports that he is, the landlord is to arrange an inspection and inform the resident of the timeframe in which this will be undertaken.