Royal Borough Of Greenwich (202012334)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202012334

Greenwich Council

18 March 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

This complaint is about:
1. the level of redress the landlord offered in respect of its acknowledged delays and failures while handling repairs to a gate controlling access to the rear of the property;
2. the landlord’s handling of the resident’s subsequent complaint.

Background and summary of events

Background

The resident is a secure tenant, and the tenancy began on 4 November 1996. The property is a three-bedroom house. The resident lives with his wife who is also named on the tenancy agreement. The landlord is the resident’s local authority.
The tenancy agreement shows the landlord is responsible for repairing the structure and exterior of the property. This includes repairing or replacing fences that adjoin public land. It also shows the landlord will consult tenants likely to be “substantially affected by any proposed major repairs or improvement schemes”.
The landlord’s repairs guide shows how it prioritises repairs. It says emergency repairs will be completed within two hours, urgent repairs will be completed within five working days and non-urgent repairs can take up to 20 working days.
The landlord operates a two stage complaints procedure. Its complaints policy document shows it will respond to complaints within 15 working days at stage one. At stage two, it will respond within 20 working days of a complaint being escalated. At both stages it will acknowledge complaints within five working days.
The landlord’s internal compensation guidance shows it considers compensation awards over £250 are appropriate where a serious or repeat service failure has had a high impact on a resident.
The resident has vulnerabilities relating to his physical health and mobility. He has said he suffers from a spine condition. This causes him chronic pain and affects his walking and balance. He uses walking sticks and a mobility scooter to get around. Based on the information in the landlord’s repairs history, it should have been aware of the resident’s mobility issues from the outset of the below timeline. In its response to the Ombudsman, the landlord said the resident had no recorded vulnerabilities on file.

Summary of events

The resident has said he reported a problem with the property’s back gate on
12 June 2020. There is no corresponding information in the landlord’s repair history to confirm the date the issue was first reported.
The repair history shows a works order was raised on 21 September 2020. The notes said the back gate at the property was broken and did not bolt shut. The landlord was to attend and remeasure the alley entrance for steel gates “with new posts for disabled access”.
It also shows the tenant contacted the landlord on 16 October 2020 chasing the repair. A further works order was subsequently raised on 22 October 2020 to “manufacture new metal gates”. The resident has said the landlord inspected the site the same day.
A note from 10 November 2020 shows an appointment was agreed to fit the new gate on 19 November 2020. The resident later said the landlord postponed the works on 18 November 2020. It is noted the second national lockdown was imposed on 5 November 2020. This shows the landlord was able to schedule the repair during lockdown conditions.
The resident emailed the landlord on 29 November 2020. He said new gates promised in August 2020 had not been fitted. Works were previously scheduled but the appointment was postponed at the last minute. He was recently advised the works were postponed again until January 2021. He was unable to walk without a stick and relied on his mobility scooter as a wheelchair. This allowed him to access the street, from the property’s back garden, through a gated alley.
He said this disabled entrance was set up in 2005 by the landlord’s Disability Team and had always worked until now. However, opening and closing the gates was “extremely hazardous” and he needed to go out on his scooter. He said the landlord failed to account for his disability and its decision to postpone replacing the gate, in favour of other works, amounted to discrimination. He said the works should be completed as scheduled, on 4 December 2020, without further delay.
The landlord acknowledged receiving the resident’s correspondence the following day. The acknowledgement said his email was passed to the landlord’s complaints team to respond in due course.
The history notes show the new gates were installed on 4 December 2020. This was more than ten weeks after the first works order was raised.
The resident emailed the landlord on 5 December 2020. He said the replacement gate was several inches smaller and there were now gaps between the frame and the fence. Further, it now opened outwards blocking his neighbour’s gate. This was also a problem for the resident who could open the old gate from his scooter. However, he now had to park it away from the gate and open it on foot. He said this was a struggle which caused him unnecessary pain.
He also said the property was now less secure, due to the gaps in the fence, and he was worried about the scooter, along with the contents of a garden shed. He said he had been assured the gate would open inwards and make the property more secure. Further, the gate should be either be remade and fitted correctly or replaced with a new wooden variety.
The landlord’s internal correspondence shows it inspected the new gates on
7 December 2020. The inspection notes said the lock case was ‘a little stiff’ and a replacement would be arranged. Gaps would be filled with welded metal plates and a second metal post. A works order to repair the timber fence was raised the same day.
Further internal correspondence from 9 December 2020 shows the landlord attended the property to undertake the above remedial works. The correspondence said the resident told the landlord’s operative not to complete the works on the basis he wanted a wooden gate.
The resident raised an online complaint on 10 December 2020. The landlord’s submission confirmation confirmed the complaint was allocated a seven-digit reference number. It said the complaint would be formally acknowledged within five working days.
Additional correspondence on 16 December 2020, shows the resident had raised concerns about the gate on multiple occasions, including through a local councillor and an MP. It shows the landlord recommended a joint site visit to determine whether the direction the gate opened was detrimental to the resident. The information suggests the joint visit would be a needs-based assessment with a specialist.
The resident raised another online complaint on 17 December 2020. The submission confirmation contained the same wording, but a new complaint reference number was allocated. No evidence was seen to show either submission received any further responses from the landlord.
A repair note from 18 December 2020 shows the resident called chasing the repair. It said he reported being house bound since the new gate was installed and that the key did not fit.
Internal correspondence from 21 December 2021 gave a list of confirmed adaptation works completed at the property by the landlord’s Disability Team. The list ran from November 2004 and included “Front access works (to the front of the property)”. It said the disability team had never been involved in any rear access works at the property. Further, it “wouldn’t get involved in rear access for a mobility scooter purchased by the client”.
The resident brought his complaint to the Ombudsman in January 2021. The Ombudsman wrote to the landlord on 22 January 2021 and asked it to respond to the resident’s concerns through its internal complaints procedure.
Internal correspondence from 10 March 2021 said the landlord had received a “series of complaints” from the resident about the property’s rear gate. It said he had continually advised alley was his designated disabled access from 2005 onwards, but the landlord had no evidence to confirm this. While the landlord had agreed the replacement gate would open inwards, from a repairs perspective, there was nothing wrong with the opening direction ‘as far as it knew’.
However, its Repairs Team was unable to assess the suitability of the gates for the resident’s circumstances. On that basis, the landlord felt a joint visit with its occupational therapy specialist would be an appropriate solution. This discussion took place around 12 weeks after a joint visit was first proposed. The Ombudsman has seen evidence the landlord was also in correspondence with the resident’s councillor around this time.
The landlord’s inspection notes confirm the joint visit, with the landlord’s occupational therapy specialist, took place on 15 March 2021. The notes confirm several items were discussed in relation to the resident’s disability needs. Primarily, the gates needed to be “rehung” to open inwards. The landlord was also advised to ensure appropriate hinges were installed to minimise the opening and closing force of the gates. Other adaptations were also agreed such as a repositioning of the lock and the use of a different type of bolt. The repairs history shows a works order was raised the same day to replace two fence posts either side of the new metal gates.
The resident updated the Ombudsman on 17 March 2021. He said the inspection confirmed the gates had not been manufactured in line with the landlord’s original specification. A fence post had also been removed in error. The occupational therapy specialist had agreed the gate would be replaced with a type that opened inwards. It would also be adapted with fixings to help the resident open and close the gates. He said he was advised it would take around two weeks for the landlord to source the required parts.
The landlord updated the councillor on 13 April 2021. It said it had completed snagging works to area surrounding the gate. However, it was awaiting the manufacture of new metal gate, which was delayed due to the impact of the pandemic on both the availability of parts and the landlord’s staffing levels.
The Ombudsman issued the landlord with a Complaint Handling Failure Order on the same day. It said a complaint handling failure had occurred because the landlord failed manage the resident’s complaint in a reasonable timescale. This was contrary the requirements of the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code. It listed six instances where the Ombudsman asked the landlord to respond to the complaint. However, despite these phone calls and emails the resident had not received a reply. It said the landlord was expected to respond by 20 April 2021 at the latest.
The landlord issued a stage one response on 23 April 2021. It apologised that, ‘though the complaint was being investigated and progressed, the landlord failed to write to the resident formally in response’. The main points were:
1. The landlord had decided it would be beneficial to replace the wooden gates with a metal alternative due to their consistent use.
2. Though the works were correctly specified the gates were not manufactured or installed as instructed. This had been confirmed by an occupational therapy specialist during an inspection on 15 March 2020. The landlord was sorry for this error. The inspection recommended adaptations to the gate’s handles to help the resident operate them.
3. The landlord agreed to remake the gate and install it correctly. It also agreed to complete minor repairs to the surrounding woodwork. The new gate would include the adaptations identified during the inspection.
4. The landlord understood the minor woodwork repairs were now complete. However, on 1 April 2020 it notified the resident the gate was delayed due to the impact of the pandemic on the landlord’s manufacturing operations. The landlord expected to start the works within two weeks.
5. The resident’s complaint was upheld given the inconvenience he was caused by the delay. £100 compensation was awarded to recognise there was a service failure on the part of the landlord.
The resident asked the landlord to escalate his complaint on 25 April 2021. He said the metal gate had taken three months to install and he was unable to operate it safely. As a result, he was housebound for around six months since
4 December 2020. Further, the landlord had not responded to his complaints, raised through different channels, on several occasions. He said he wanted a wooden gate, and he should be compensated £100 for every day he was housebound.
Internal correspondence from 26 May 2021 shows the new gate was installed the same day. However, the landlord would return to complete any outstanding works on 27 May 2021. It shows the resident reported a broken fence post along with rubbish dumped in the alley.
The landlord issued a stage two complaint response on 9 June 2021. This was 30 working days after the resident’s escalation request. It acknowledged a delay in responding to the resident’s complaint, but said it wanted to be sure the works were complete before responding. The main points were:
1. The landlord replaced the wooden gate to increase its durability and reduce the number of repairs needed due to wear and tear. The proposal was discussed with the resident, and he agreed to the metal gate. The landlord had agreed it would be manufactured and installed the same as the existing gate.
2. The gate was manufactured and installed by the landlord’s metal workshop. Though the works were specified correctly, it was manufactured and installed incorrectly.
3. Under normal circumstances, the landlord expected the gate would be manufactured and installed within four weeks. However, the works were delayed significantly by the pandemic. Staff shortages and issues with the availability of parts also contributed to the delay.
4. The resident raised concerns about the suitability of the new gate given his disability. The landlord’s occupational therapy specialist therefore inspected it to determine whether the specification was suitable or if adaptations were needed.
5. The inspection confirmed the gate would have been suitable if it was manufactured and installed correctly. Some additional adaptions were recommended to help the resident open the gate.
6. Works were delayed but the remanufactured gates were ultimately installed on 27 May 2021. The landlord’s occupational health (therapy) specialist would contact the resident soon to arrange a post installation inspection of the works.
7. The landlord was aware the resident had contacted various departments about his concerns. It was sorry for any inconvenience caused by the delays and installation errors. It acknowledged it may have been difficult for him to operate the gate, but it said this should not have prevented him from leaving his home.
8. The landlord accepted the resident was inconvenienced and it therefore increased the level of compensation to £350 in total.
The resident outlined his concerns to the Ombudsman on 24 June 2021. The main points were:
1. The resident was unhappy the wooden gate was replaced with a metal alternative. The alley was the only disabled access to the property and the landlord took the decision to replace the gate without consulting him. No specialist assessment was completed to ensure the suitability of the works.
2. There were significant delays in installing the gate because it was initially made incorrectly. This impacted on the resident’s privacy and left the property vulnerable to intruders. During the joint inspection, he was told it would take three weeks to rectify the gates.
3. Around three weeks later he was advised the works were postponed due to a lack of staff. The landlord said he would be contacted again after the Easter bank holiday, but this never happened.
4. The resident raised multiple complaints though different channels but did not receive a formal response from the landlord. He wrote eight letters to different people about the problem.
5. The resident was housebound until the gate was correctly installed. He was unable to carry out routine activities such as attending medical appointments, collecting medicine, going shopping, or going to the bank. This increased his pain level and negatively impacted his mental health.
6. The level of compensation the landlord awarded was too low given the impact of the situation on the resident. He felt £100 per day was more proportionate given what happened. He was also unhappy the landlord disputed that he was unable to leave the property.
The resident emailed the Ombudsman on 27 June 2021. He said the landlord’s complaints specialist inspected the gates on 27 May 2021. Further, during the inspection, the specialist said they would recommend an electric gate which would be easier for the resident to operate. He also said the specialist confirmed the alley was specifically converted for disabled access, around 17 years ago. This was following an assessment from the landlord’s Occupational Therapy Team.

Assessment and findings

It is recognised the situation was distressing for the resident and the issue was ongoing for a considerable period of time. It may help to explain that, though this Service is an alternative to the courts, the Ombudsman is unable to make findings under the Equalities Act (2010) or otherwise. Nor can the Ombudsman establish liability or award damages. It is therefore unable to determine whether the landlord was responsible for the resident being housebound during the repair. This is a matter which is likely better suited to the courts.
The repairs guide shows the landlord should complete non urgent repairs within 20 working days. This is a reasonable benchmark given it manufactured the metal gate specially for the property. No evidence was seen to show the resident was given an alternative timescale during the timeline. While it is noted the landlord was affected by the pandemic, the evidence suggests it failed to manage the resident’s expectations by quoting him its non-urgent repair timescale. No information was seen to show any delays resulted from the impact of national lockdown restrictions.
The evidence shows it took more than eight months, between 21 September 2020 and 27 May 2021for the replacement gate to be correctly installed. This represents an unreasonable timeframe to complete the repair given the circumstances. More than five months of this period, between 4 December 2020 and 27 May 2021, related to time the landlord spent identifying issues with the metal gate, and then remaking it in line with the required specification.
This additional delay could have reasonably been avoided if the correct specification was achieved at the first time of asking. The evidence suggests the impact to the resident was particularly severe during this period. He initially reported operating the metal gate was a struggle, which caused him unnecessary pain. He later said he was unable to use the metal gate at all.
No evidence was seen to fully confirm whether the alley was a designated disabled access to the property. Nor was any seen to show it was previously assessed or adapted for this purpose by the landlord. However, there were multiple references to the resident’s disability in the landlord’s repair history. These included records which captured the importance of the alley as a route for his mobility scooter. Similar information was captured in the works order from September 2020. As a result, the landlord should have been sufficiently aware of his situation at the outset. Its records should also have reflected his vulnerability.
The tenancy agreement shows the landlord was obliged to consult the resident if it deemed he was likely to be “substantially affected by any proposed major repairs or improvement schemes”. The landlord said the resident was consulted about the decision to install a metal gate and he agreed to its proposal. This is disputed by the resident and no evidence was seen to clarify the matter. However, from the timeline, it is clear the landlord could have reasonably involved its occupational therapy specialist at a much earlier stage of the repair. The timeline also confirms specific adaptions to the metal gate resulted from the specialist’s involvement.
The landlord said the gate was specified correctly but errors occurred during its manufacturing process. No evidence was seen to support the landlord’s finding. Its stage two response accepted “additional adaptions” were included when the gate was remade. The evidence shows these adaptions were made to help the resident operate the gate. While the original specification of the gate was not seen, the timeline shows the specialist’s assessment ultimately enhanced its useability for the resident. As a result, it is reasonable to conclude involving the specialist much earlier would have increased the landlord’s chances of manufacturing the gate correctly in the first instance.
In relation to electric gates, the timeline shows the landlord reattended the property on 27 May 2021. Based on the information seen, this was to complete minor snagging works and clear the alley. No information was seen to show the landlord’s attending operative was a complaints specialist. Nor was any record seen to confirm that recommendations arose from this visit. The timeline confirms the gate that was ultimately installed was deemed suitable by the landlord’s occupational therapy specialist. Given the above, there is no evidence to show an electric gate is required.
The landlord has accepted it was responsible for delays and failures during the timeline. It also acknowledged the resident was inconvenienced as a result. It therefore awarded him £350 in compensation to address what went wrong. This assessment therefore considered whether the landlord’s level of redress was appropriate given the inconvenience the resident was caused by its handling of the repair, along with his complaint. It was noted, from the wording of the landlord’s responses that its offer appeared to be based two key findings. Firstly, that the gate originally specified was suitable for the resident. Second, the resident was not prevented from leaving the property due to the replacement gate.
In relation to the failures identified, the Ombudsman’s role is to consider whether the redress offered by the landlord put things right and resolved the complainant’s complaint satisfactorily in the circumstances. In considering this the Ombudsman takes into account whether the landlord’s offer of redress was in line with the Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles: Be Fair, Put Things Right and Learn from Outcomes as well as our own guidance on remedies.
From the evidence, it is clear the landlord was responsible for serious failings during the timeline. The landlord’s compensation guidance shows it eventually recognised the high level of impact on the resident, which it reflected in its offer of £350 in compensation. This assessment found there were around 11 months of avoidable delays in total. This includes delays relating to the repair and delays in responding to the resident’s complaint. This is a significant duration of overall delays given the importance of the access to the resident was clear at the outset.
Based on the timeline, the landlord’s assertion the metal gate was originally specified correctly is questionable. This is because the joint inspection notes detail around five adaptations to the gate were agreed following the inspection. An optional further amendment was also recommended for consideration. This suggests the landlord failed to reflect the full extent of its shortcomings in both the wording of its final response, and in the rationale behind its offer of compensation.
In relation to the impact on the resident, the number of agreed alternations to the gate, following the joint inspection, was found to indicate the level of difficulty he encountered while operating it. Since he said dismounting the scooter to open the gate was painful, it is reasonable to conclude he experienced significant distress and inconvenience for a substantial portion of the timeline. This was found to be apparent regardless of whether the landlord agreed the resident was housebound or not.
Given the above, this assessment found the landlord’s offer of compensation was disproportionate in relation to its delays and failures whilst handling the repair. However, because the landlord took steps to put things right by awarding compensation in line with its own guidance, this represents service failure on its part.
In respect of the landlord’s complaint handling, the evidence shows it failed to respond to the resident’s concerns on a number of occasions. This is confirmed by the landlord’s internal correspondence on 16 December 2020, in which the landlord expressed concern over the level of contact it had received about the issue. Nevertheless, despite being aware of the resident’s unhappiness, it did not reply to his complaint for more than four months. This is based on the period between 10 December 2020 and 23 April 2021.
During this time, separate interventions from a councillor and the Ombudsman failed to prompt the landlord to address the complaint in line with its complaints policy. The timeline shows it also failed to respond to the resident within the final deadline contained in the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Failure Order. The landlord was issued multiple reminders prior to the Order being issued. This is a serious failure since landlords are given ample opportunity to work with the Ombudsman to avoid such orders being issued.
The resident said he wrote to multiple parties about the issue, which is supported by the timeline. It is reasonable to conclude this level of engagement was inconvenient. By failing to address the complaint promptly, the landlord missed an opportunity to rectify issues relating to its handling of the repair. It is likely this prevented it from avoiding additional delays. For example, prompted by the resident’s concerns, the landlord identified the need for a joint assessment on
16 December 2020. However, there is no information to show it acted on this recommendation until the subject arose again, around 12 weeks later, on
10 March 2021.
Given the above, this assessment found the landlord’s complaint handling warranted separate consideration given the extent of the failures identified. Further, the issue should have been subject to a separate offer of compensation proportionate to the level of additional distress and inconvenience the resident was caused. As a result, the assessment found there was maladministration on the part of the landlord in respect of its complaint handling.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure by the landlord in connection with the level of redress it offered in respect of its acknowledged delays and failures while handling repairs to the gate controlling access to the rear of the property.
In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration in respect of the landlord’s complaint handling.

Reasons

The landlord failed to award redress proportionate to the duration of the delays. It also failed to recognise the full extent of its shortcomings since it said the gate was specified correctly in the first instance. This rationale likely influenced the level of compensation it awarded. The assessment also found the landlord underestimated the impact of the situation on the resident based on the level of compensation it awarded.
The assessment found serious delays and failures in relation to the landlord’s complaint handling. These included non-compliance with a Complaint Handling Failure Order deadline. Given the additional distress and inconvenience caused to the resident, it found the issue warranted separate consideration and a separate compensation award.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

The Ombudsman orders the landlord to pay the resident an additional £400 in compensation within four weeks comprising:
1. £200to remedy any distress and inconvenience to the resident, which was overlooked by its previous offer of £350 redress.
2. £200 to remedy any distress and inconvenience caused by the multiple delays and failures in its complaint handling.

The Ombudsman’s order brings the overall level of redress to £750 in total.

The Ombudsman orders the landlord to ensure its relevant records correctly reflect the resident’s vulnerabilities.

Recommendations

The landlord to review its processes for involving occupational therapy specialists during repairs which require upgrades or alternative product specifications. This is with a view a view to ensuring any works are completed in accordance with the needs of the resident at the first time of asking.
The landlord should provide evidence of compliance with the above orders and confirm its intentions with regards to the recommendation within four weeks of the date of this report.