Landlords can now complete the Complaint Handling Code Annual Submissions form. More information is available online.

Newlon Housing Trust (202215690)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202215690

Newlon Housing Trust

13 February 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 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 handling of:
    1. The resident’s request for a bannister to be installed on her staircase, and the subsequent offer of compensation for this.
    2. The associated complaint.

Background

  1. The resident is a tenant of the landlord of a basement and ground floor flat. The landlord has not recorded any vulnerabilities for her on its system.
  2. On 13 April 2022, the resident reported to the landlord that she had fallen on her property’s staircase, which did not have any handrails or bannisters, on the previous day, and that she was concerned that this would occur again. She therefore asked it for a bannister to be installed on the stairs. The resident then chased the landlord for this on 26 April 2022, as she had received no response to her request from it, and she also reported that she had fallen on the stairs again two days earlier.
  3. Following a visit by the landlord’s surveyor to the resident’s property, it responded to her on 19 May 2022, and it advised her that, as the stairs had walls on either side, it was standard for there to be no bannister or handrail. Nevertheless, it informed her that, if it received a referral from a doctor or an occupational therapist, which included measurements for the bannister, it would be able to install one.
  4. The resident responded to the landlord on 25 May 2022, and she attached a supporting letter written by a registered nurse, which requested that it consider installing the bannister as a matter of safety. This further explained that she had mobility problems with her knees, and that a bannister could prevent future falls. The landlord responded on the same day, explaining that the letter did not contain references to the measurements that it required, but that it had nevertheless sent this to its surveyor to be considered.
  5. Following the resident chasing the landlord for its surveyor’s response on 5 June 2022, an operative from it unsuccessfully attempted to attend her property on 9 June 2022, for which she received no prior notice. There was a further attempted visit by an operative on 15 June 2022, but she again received no prior notice of this either, and so the operative could not gain access to the property once more.
  6. The resident attempted to make a stage one complaint to the landlord on 5 and 16 June 2022, as she was dissatisfied that the bannister was yet to be installed, that she was having to chase it, and that she had been given no prior notice for the operatives’ visits.
  7. On 20 June 2022, another operative from the landlord attended the resident’s property to install the bannister there. However, she declined their proposed works to fit this, as the bannister would be mounted on a timber board, which she instead sought to be mounted directly on the plasterboard wall. The resident reported that the operative had informed her that they would feed this back to the landlord, and that it would contact her within the next few days. It then told her on 21 June 2022 that it had logged her complaint at stage zero of its complaints procedure.
  8. The resident nevertheless raised a further stage one complaint on 25 August 2022, as she was still waiting for the installation of the bannister, and had not received a response from the landlord following the visit on 20 June 2022. She reported that she had experienced another fall, and expressed that she was “angered” at its “incompetence” at not being able to follow through with the works. The resident also clarified that she had declined the landlord’s proposed works on 20 June 2022 because she did not want a “bodged job done”, and she reported that its operative had informed her the timber board could be hidden, which is what she sought.
  9. The landlord therefore organised a further inspection on 2 September 2022, so that it was able to plan the bannister installation works. On 7 September 2022, its internal correspondence showed that it had agreed to install the wooden board enclosed within a partition wall, and to mount the bannister onto this.
  10. The landlord’s stage one complaint response of 8 September 2022 upheld the resident’s complaint regarding its delay in installing her bannister. It acknowledged that there had been a failing in its service, which had led to a delay before it actioned further works. The landlord also confirmed that the work was being treated as urgent, and it apologised that the resident did not receive the expected service for this. However, it declined to offer her compensation at this stage, and it instead explained that it would wait until the installation process had been completed before doing so, directing her to read the information about timeframes for repairs in its supplied repair leaflet.
  11. The resident escalated her complaint to the final stage of the landlord’s complaint procedure on 8 September 2022, as she was dissatisfied that the landlord had not kept her updated about the bannister installation. She added that it was trying to “cover [its] back” by highlighting “long-term repairs” section of its repair leaflet to her, and it acknowledged her final stage complaint on 15 September 2022.
  12. An operative of the landlord attended the resident’s property on 3 October 2022, of which the resident again received no prior notice, and so there was no access for this. It attempted to make a further appointment for 10 October 2022, but she was unable to attend this, so it rescheduled this for 15 October 2022. However, once the operative arrived on the latter date, the resident had to leave, and so the appointment was rescheduled for 22 October 2022.
  13. The landlord’s final stage complaint response of 18 October 2022 apologised for the delay in its response. It upheld the resident’s complaint for its delays in completing works to install her bannister, but it stated that it was pleased that the installation was planned for 22 October 2022. The landlord explained that the delay in installing the bannister was partly because she had declined its weekday appointments and the initial bannister installation, and partly due to its poor communication and management of the works, for which it apologised. It therefore offered the resident £150 total compensation broken down as:
    1. £75 for its delays in completing the works;
    2. £50 for its poor communication;
    3. £25 for its delayed final stage complaint response.
  14. The resident subsequently complained to this Service, as she was dissatisfied with the amount of compensation in consideration of the stress and pain that she had experienced, and of the time taken by her to attend hospital appointments as a result of her injury, chase the landlord, and be off work. She explained that this was because her property’s stairs were very steep, and so had caused her falls and injury without a bannister.
  15. An operative of the landlord attended the resident’s property on 22 October 2022 to install the bannister, but they required assistance to do so, and so they returned on 4 November 2022 with a supervisor, and the banister was installed on the latter date. The works were then completed by 9 December 2022, after an operative retuned to complete the redecoration of the wall on which the bannister was installed.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

  1. It is of concern that the resident has reported experiencing falls on her property’s stairs, and resulting injuries and time off work, from the lack of a bannister on the stairs. While we do not doubt her reports about this, her falls, injuries and time off work are outside the scope of this investigation to consider. This is because, under the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, this Service is unable to determine liability or award damages for falls, injuries or time off work, as we do not have the authority or expertise to do so. However, we have considered the general distress and inconvenience which the situation has caused the resident.

The resident’s request for a bannister to be installed on her staircase, and the subsequent offer of compensation for this

  1. The landlord’s repairs policy and procedure states that routine repairs should be completed within 20 working days. In contrast, long-term repairs that are outlined as being more complex and that may require specialist contractors, extra money, and more than one visit to complete, such as internal joinery, should be completed within three months.
  2. However, the resident had to wait almost seven months for the bannister to be installed after raising this on 13 April 2022 until this was fitted on 4 November 2022, with the works to complete the redecoration of the wall that the bannister was installed on being completed on 9 December 2022. While some of this delay was outside of the landlord’s control, this was nevertheless beyond both its repairs policy and procedure’s routine repair timeframe of 20 working days, and its three-month timeframe for long-term repairs.
  3. The landlord appropriately acknowledged that there had been a delay in installing the resident’s bannister that it had been partly responsible for in its final stage complaint response, and it apologised to her for this. It also attributed this delay to reasons including her being unable to make weekday appointments that were instead rearranged for later dates, and her declining the installation on 20 June 2022, as well as its poor communication and management of the works.
  4. The landlord’s compensation policy and procedure outlines that compensation from £10 per week can be offered for every week of a delay in it performing a repair. It offered the resident £75 compensation for the delay, which would be appropriate redress for a seven-and-a-half-week delay. While the total bannister installation delay that she experienced of almost seven months was longer than this, some of the delay could be attributed to factors other than the landlord delaying these works itself, as outlined in its final stage complaint response to her above.
  5. This included the resident’s requests for a different bannister installation to that proposed by the landlord on 20 June 2022, which would have been within its three-month long-term repair timescale, and to rearrange appointments until later dates. The latter included her requests to do so from 10 to 15 and 22 October 2022. It was therefore reasonable of the landlord to offer the above amount of compensation for the delayed bannister installation. In addition, this level of compensation is within the range recommended by this Service’s remedies guidance from £50 for a failing in its service, which included a delay in getting the matter resolved.
  6. The landlord also appropriately acknowledged that its communication regarding the type of works, and their timescale, was poor and unclear, whereas it was instead expected to provide clear next steps to manage resident’s expectations. It should have communicated to her that it was considering its obligations as to whether it was required to perform the bannister installation, and then informed her of its decision. Instead, the resident had to chase the landlord for updates on its progress on 26 April and 5 June 2022, resulting in further inconvenience for her.
  7. Furthermore, the landlord failed to inform the resident about upcoming visits, including those it had arranged for 9 and 15 June and 3 October 2022, for which she reported that she had received no prior notice. This poor communication delayed the repairs process further, as it was unable to access her property to progress the bannister installation works there on those dates, leading to further inconvenience to her.
  8. It was therefore reasonable that the landlord acknowledged and apologised for its poor communication in its final stage complaint response. It also offered the resident £50 compensation for this, which doubled the £25 compensation suggested for poor communication by its compensation policy and procedure. This highlighted that the landlord understood her distress, inconvenience, time and trouble when she was chasing it for updates as a result of its lack of communication. This amount is also in line with the amount recommended by this Service’s remedies guidance from £50 for such distress, inconvenience, time and trouble.
  9. The landlord’s aids and adaptations policy and procedure states that minor aids and adaptations to its properties based on its residents’ health issues are to be carried out in the same way as repairs, including stair handrails, which it should arrange. It also outlines that, where a resident has stated that they have a disability, it should check this on its system, and if this is not recorded then it should carry out a vulnerability assessment.
  10. It was reasonable that the landlord did not initially grant the resident’s request of 13 April 2022 for a bannister to be installed because it is not obliged to install adaptations where there is no recorded vulnerability or risk to her. Following a visit to her property by its surveyor, however, it explained to her on 19 May 2022 that it could not install the bannister without supporting medical evidence. This was reasonable because such evidence was necessary to allow the landlord to understand the resident’s exact vulnerabilities before proceeding with the bannister works.
  11. However, following receipt of a supporting letter for the resident for a bannister provided to the landlord on 25 May 2022 from a medical professional, which it had requested, it should have completed a vulnerability assessment to further understand her needs and its obligations to her. It nevertheless failed to do so, but it did proceed with the bannister works, which was appropriate considering her ongoing safety concerns, and repeated falls which she reported had led to injuries. It would also have been appropriate, however, for the landlord to have undertaken the vulnerability assessment, so that the works could be confirmed as suitable for the resident’s needs, and so that it could decide what timescale these needed to be completed within.
  12. The fact that the landlord did not consider the resident’s evidenced mobility issues, and carry out a vulnerability assessment of her for these in line with its aids and adaptations policy and procedure, was a failing on its part, which it did not appropriately acknowledge or compensate her for. It has therefore been ordered below to pay £100 further compensation to her in recognition of this, and of her resulting inconvenience from its handling of the installation of her bannister without reference to this. This is in accordance with this Service’s remedies guidance’s recommendation of compensation from £100 for failures that adversely affected the resident.
  13. It is also of concern that there was no evidence that the landlord complied with its obligation from its compensation policy and procedure for it advise the resident to submit a claim in writing with details to it for it to refer her reports of the personal injuries that she experienced from falling on her stairs to its liability insurance. It has therefore been ordered below to provide her with details to enable her to make a such claim for damages for the injuries that she reported, if it has not done so already.
  14. Moreover, the landlord has been recommended below to review its records in relation to the resident’s reported mobility issues, in light of her medical evidence of these and it not recording any vulnerabilities for her on its system. It has additionally been recommended below to review its staff’s training needs with regard to their implementation of its aids and adaptations policy and procedure, for when residents without recorded vulnerabilities seek aids and adaptations.

The associated complaint

  1. The landlord’s complaints procedure outlines that a stage one complaint should be acknowledged within five working days, and receive a response within ten working days. Final stage complaints should be acknowledged within two working days, and responded to within 20 working days. Furthermore, the procedure outlines that, if these timescales cannot be met, an explanation and expected date for the response should be provided to the resident. The landlord previously had a stage zero in its complaints procedure, however this was removed from the procedure on 7 September 2021.
  2. The landlord provided a final stage complaint acknowledgement on 15 September 2022, which was five working days after the resident escalated her complaint on 8 September 2022. This was contrary to its complaints procedure’s final stage complaint acknowledgement timescale of two working days.
  3. Furthermore, the landlord’s final stage complaint response of 18 October 2022 was 28 working days after the resident’s escalation of her complaint to the final stage of the complaints procedure. It should have communicated this delay to her, as per its complaints procedure, but it failed to do so. It was therefore reasonable that the landlord acknowledged and apologised to the resident for this delay in its final stage complaint response. It was also appropriate that it offered £25 compensation to her, in recognition of the delay. This was in line with the landlord’s compensation policy, which suggests compensation of this amount where there has been a failure to meet a published timescale.
  4. Although this compensation was less than the recommended amount from £50 suggested by this Service’s remedies guidance for such failings, the landlord acknowledged its failing and attempted to put things right. This apology and offer of compensation were therefore reasonable in the circumstances, as this was proportionate to recognise the inconvenience experienced by the resident from its handling of her final stage complaint.
  5. However, the resident began complaining to the landlord at stage one of its complaints procedure on 5 and 16 June 2022. It was therefore not appropriate that, on 21 June 2022, it informed her that it had logged her complaint at stage zero of its complaints procedure, as it had removed this stage from the procedure on 7 September 2021.
  6. This unnecessarily prolonged the landlord’s complaints procedure and caused further inconvenience to the resident, as she had to make a further stage one complaint to it on 25 August 2022 for this to be accepted. Moreover, this was contrary to this Service’s complaint handling code’s prohibition against obstructing access to the procedure without a valid reason to do so, and a subsequent written explanation to her of this.
  7. The satisfactory resolution of the resident’s complaint was not prevented by the landlord’s complaint handling failings, and its stage one complaint response of 8 September 2022 was within its complaints procedure’s ten-working-day timescale of her latest stage one complaint. However, this was unnecessarily delayed by over two months from her first attempt to submit a stage one complaint to it from 5 June 2022 onwards.
  8. This amounted to a failure on the landlord’s part, which it did not appropriately address in its complaint responses to the resident, or provide a remedy to her for. It has therefore been ordered below to pay her a further £50 compensation, in recognition of its poor stage one complaint handling in her case. The landlord has also been recommended below to review its staff’s training needs regarding their application of its complaints procedure, and of this Service’s complaint handling code, to seek to ensure that its poor handling of the resident’s complaint does not occur again in the future.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure by the landlord in its handling of:
    1. The resident’s request for a bannister to be installed on her staircase, and the subsequent offer of compensation for this.
    2. The associated complaint.

Orders and recommendations

  1. The landlord is ordered to:
    1. Pay the resident compensation totalling £300 within four weeks, which is broken down into:
      1. The £150 that it previously offered her, if it has not paid this already.
      2. £100 further compensation for its failure to carry out a vulnerability assessment for her, in line with its aids and adaptations policy.
      3. £50 further compensation in recognition of its stage one complaint handling failings, and of the delay that this caused in providing a resolution to her complaint.
    2. Provide the resident with details within four weeks to enable her to make a liability insurance claim to it for damages for the personal injuries that she reported experiencing from falling on her stairs, if it has not done so already.
  2. It is recommended that the landlord:
    1. Review its records in relation to the resident’s reported mobility issues, in light of her medical evidence of these and it not recording any vulnerabilities for her on its system.
    2. Review its staff’s training needs with regard to their implementation of its aids and adaptations policy and procedure, for when residents without recorded vulnerabilities seek aids and adaptations.
    3. Review its staff training needs with regard to their application of its complaints procedure, and of this Service’s complaint handling code at https://www.housing-ombudsman.org.uk/landlords-info/complaint-handling-code/, to seek to ensure that its poor handling of the resident’s complaint does not occur again in the future.
  3. The landlord shall contact this Service within four weeks to confirm that it has complied with the above orders, and whether it will follow the above recommendations.