Bournemouth Churches Housing Association Limited (202205550)

                         

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202205550

Bournemouth Churches Housing Association Ltd

1 March 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:

a. response to the resident’s request for the windows in his property to be replaced.

b. complaints handling.

Background and Summary of events

2. The resident is an assured shorthold tenant of the landlord. The landlord is a registered provider of social housing. The property is a one bedroom flat located on the second floor of a block. The resident has disclosed to the landlord that he is disabled and has a mental health condition. 

3. The tenancy agreement provides that the landlord will maintain the structure and exterior of the home.

4. The landlord’s repairs policy has four repair priority categories. Emergency repairs are to be completed within four hours with critical repairs to be undertaken within 24 hours. Urgent repairs are to be completed within five working days with routine repairs to be undertaken within 21 working days. 

5. At the time of the complaint, the landlord operated a two stage complaints procedure with an optional third stage. A first stage complaint should be responded to within 10 working days. A second stage complaint should be responded to within 15 working days. The optional stage three of the landlord’s complaint’s procedure was a referral to an internal panel who would respond within 20 working days. Alternatively, the resident could be signposted to this service. 

6. The landlord’s compensation policy provides that compensation will be awarded where loss or inconvenience is incurred by a resident. The policy further states that there are specific circumstances where compensation is payable for loss of an amenity or where there is loss of the whole or part use of a property. There is also provision for the discretionary payment of compensation in other circumstances where the resident can demonstrate any financial loss or inconvenience suffered.

7. The resident states that he first reported problems with draughts from his windows and poor sound insulation to his landlord three years before he raised a formal complaint. The landlord’s internal call and repair logs record that the resident was first informed in December 2019 that the landlord intended to replace his windows in January 2020 as part of planned works. These works did not commence in January 2020 and instead arrangements were made for the resident’s windows to be repaired in late February 2020. The landlord’s contractors resealed the windows, however, the resident was dissatisfied with the work undertaken and reported to the landlord that as a consequence of the repairs the problem with draughts had become worse.

8. The landlord raised a repair in March 2020 to replace the window hinges in the resident’s property in the bathroom, bedroom, and lounge. The works were completed on 11 March 2020. The resident contacted the landlord on 7 April  2020 to report that the issues with his windows were ongoing and requested an update from the repairs team.

9. In July 2020, the landlord advised the resident that it would arrange for a different contactor to visit the property to provide a condition report for the windows. It appears from the landlord’s records that this visit was delayed until early September 2020.

10. On 21 September 2020 the resident made a complaint to the landlord by telephone. He said that he was unhappy about the length of time he had been waiting for his windows to be replaced and that he was having difficulties contacting the landlord’s staff to follow this up. 

11. The landlord‘s stage one response dated 25 September 2020 informed the resident that the contractor’s condition report had been received and that once the recommended works had been signed off it would be liaising with the resident to arrange a convenient time to complete the works to replace the windows. It apologised for the delay in contacting him and explained that this was because the relevant staff had been on leave or had been out of the office on visits.

12. The resident heard nothing further and on 27 November 2020, he followed this up with the landlord by telephone but was informed that this was still with the repairs team. The resident called and texted the landlord again on 4 December 2020 to complain that he was still waiting for an update. The landlord responded and informed him that a heat loss and insulation survey would be carried out on 9 December 2020. Arrangements were also made for a contractor to visit on the same day to measure the windows.

13. As part of the heat loss and insulation survey, the resident’s flat was inspected on 9 December 2020. The survey revealed that the thermal performance in the property was poor and identified that the external wall in the resident’s property was inadequately insulated. Following the survey the landlord proposed that insulation works for the flats would be undertaken as part of planned works. As an interim measure, on 14 December 2020 contractors attended the resident’s flat to fit draught or insulation film to all windows. They later reported back to the landlord that they could not identify any draughts in the property as the resident had sealed all the windows shut.

14. In February 2021, the resident contacted the landlord again to complain and provided the landlord with a copy of his heating bills which he stated were higher than usual. He asked for compensation as he felt that he had been put to added expense because of the delays to his windows being replaced. On 17 February 2021, the resident made a further formal complaint on the same issue. It is unclear from the landlord’s records whether this was initially treated as a new complaint however correspondence from the landlord dated June 2021 indicates that the complaint had been escalated to a stage two complaint.

15. On 24 February 2021, the landlord raised some works to further insulate the property pending replacement of the windows. This involved filling gaps around pipework and increasing insulation in the loft area and around the water tank. On 9 April 2021, the landlord’s contractors attended to complete these works. They were not able to install the loft insulation due to the loft space being inaccessible. Existing insulation around the hot water tanks was considered to be adequate in the short-term. It was recorded that the flats were to be fitted with combination boilers in the future as part of planned works.

16. The new windows were installed on 23 March 2021 and were inspected by the landlord’s surveyor on 24 March 2021. The surveyor identified that some further works would need to be undertaken and that this would involve installing trickle vents and sealing window sills. It was agreed that these works would be undertaken when the contractors attended on 19 April 2021 to install two additional windows.

17. On 30 March 2021, the resident called the landlord to complain that the windows had not been fitted correctly as there were large gaps around the frames. He also said that the windows did not close properly and the window sills were loose and had not been sealed. The following day, the resident contacted the landlord to request that his complaint be progressed to stage two. He was advised that the senior officer dealing with his complaint was currently on leave, but his complaint would be progressed on her return to work on the 6 April 2021.

18. On 19 April 2021, two additional windows were installed in the property. Over the following days, there were post-works inspections which concluded that there were no gaps around the windows and no draughts were identified.  

19. The resident remained unhappy with the works and made further complaints to the landlord. In May 2021, an independent surveyor was instructed by the landlord to prepare a condition report on the newly–installed windows.

20. On 28 June 2021, the landlord sent the resident a ‘stage two complaint update’ in which it stated that it was awaiting the condition report and should the report identify that further works to the windows were required, these works would be undertaken. The landlord later advised in its stage two response that the report had concluded that the windows had been installed to industry standard.

21. On 5 October 2021, the resident had a telephone discussion with the landlord who enquired whether the resident would like to move to another property. The resident replied that he did not wish to move as it would be too unsettling for him. The resident called again in November 2021 and reported that the problems with the windows were aggravating his health problems. 

22. On 3 December 2021, the landlord visited the resident at home to discuss his complaint. The landlord informed the resident that it did not propose to undertake any further works to the windows. 

23. On 9 December 2021, the landlord issued its stage 2 complaint response in which it:

a. apologised for the delay in responding to the complaint, which was due to a change in staff;

b. confirmed that it had replaced the windows in the resident’s flat and had completed several post-inspections. Further, it had instructed an independent investigator who visited in June 2021 and reported that the windows have been fitted, and finished, to industry standard. Therefore no further works would be undertaken to replace them;

c. acknowledged the resident’s claim that delays in replacing his windows had contributed to his increased heating costs and offered a one-off payment of £350 as contribution towards the resident’s increased utility costs; 

24. Between December 2021 and April 2022, the resident and his mental health worker contacted the landlord on a number of occasions to report ongoing issues with the windows.

25. In May 2022, the landlord’s surveyor visited the property again and prepared a report detailing any outstanding works to be undertaken in the property which concluded that there was no evidence that windows in the kitchen and bathroom had been poorly fitted. The report stated that the windows in the living area could not be inspected as the resident had sealed them but temperature readings had been taken which did not show that there were draughts in the living room. The report also stated that readings had been taken which showed that the noise in the property was at normal expected levels. The report concluded that the windows did not need to be replaced.

26. In referring the case to this service, the resident expressed he was unhappy with the replacement windows as he considered that they were substandard quality and poorly–fitted. He also reported that there was now mould growth around the windows. The resident advised that his mental health was being impacted and he was unable to sleep well due to ongoing problems with draughts and noise.

Assessment and findings

Scope of the investigation

27. The resident has stated that the landlord’s failings in respect of his windows has impacted on his health. The Ombudsman does not doubt the resident’s claims in this respect, however it is beyond the remit of this service to determine the cause of, or liability for, impact on health and wellbeing or award damages for these in the way that the courts or an insurer might. This is because we do not have the authority or expertise necessary to make such legally binding judgments. The resident may wish to seek independent legal advice on making a personal injury claim if he considers that his health has been affected by any action or lack thereof by the landlord. Nonetheless, consideration has been given to the general distress and inconvenience which the situation may have caused the resident.

28. The resident advised at the time of his complaint that he has been reporting problems with his windows for three years. The Ombudsman will not consider complaints that were not brought to the attention of the landlord as a formal complaint within a reasonable period, which would normally be within six months of the matters arising. Therefore, whilst the historical incidents provide context to the current complaint, this assessment focuses on events from March 2020 onwards, which is six months before the resident first made a formal complaint to the landlord.

Replacement of the resident’s windows

29. The landlord informed the resident in December 2019 that the windows would be replaced as part of a planned works scheme in January 2020. Planned works are often major works that are scheduled to take place at defined intervals to maintain, repair, or replace external or common parts of the building and structures, including windows. Social landlords have limited resources and are expected to manage these resources responsibly, to the benefit of all their residents. It can be reasonable for landlords to replace items such as doors, windows, kitchens, and bathrooms as part of a planned programme of works rather than on an ad-hoc basis. It was therefore reasonable for the landlord to consider this approach.

30. The resident reported that his windows were draughty and did not provide adequate noise insulation. The Ombudsman expects landlords to consider interim works where there will be a delay until a planned programme of works.  The landlord therefore acted appropriately by arranging for the windows to be resealed and the hinges replaced pending the planned works to replace them. The resident expressed to the landlord that he was dissatisfied with these works and that problems with his windows were ongoing. Where a resident makes repeated complaints of a similar nature, it is best practice for a landlord to obtain a second opinion from a surveyor with no previous involvement with the case. In this instance, the landlord acted appropriately in arranging for a new contractor to inspect the windows and complete a condition report. 

31. The replacement of the resident’s windows was delayed until March 2021. The landlord’s internal records indicates that the condition report had been delayed and thereafter there was a problem with subcontractors. These were both delays outside of the landlord’s control, however, where there are delays the resident should be provided with regular updates so that they can be reassured that the landlord is using its best endeavours to address the issue. The landlord, having previously given January 2020 as a date when the planned works to replace the windows would commence, did not provide the resident with an updated timescale for works with an explanation for delays. The landlord’s poor communication would have caused distress to the resident.

32. Following the installation of the replacement windows in March 2021, it was appropriate for the landlord to arrange for an independent expert to review the work and prepare a condition report given the difference of opinion between the resident and the landlord’s staff and contractors regarding the standard of work. The landlord later advised that the report had concluded that the windows had been installed to industry standard.

33. While it is clear that the resident did not agree with the landlord’s findings, the landlord was entitled to rely on the reports provided to it by its contractors, surveyors and independent experts who had all concluded that the windows were installed correctly and did not require replacing.

34. It was good practice for the landlord to explore other options with the resident, in this instance a move to one of the landlord’s other properties was suggested. Further, as the resident had reported concerns about the cold temperature in the property and the impact this may have on his health, the landlord acted appropriately in commissioning a thermal impact survey to assess the heating efficiency in the property and acted reasonably in considering and undertaking works to improve insulation pending planned works. The landlord also took into account the resident’s complaints regarding his increased energy bills over the winter period by awarding the resident compensation in its stage two complaint response to help meet these costs.

35. While the landlord took appropriate steps to satisfy itself that the windows were installed to industry standard, it did not provide the resident with a timely explanation for delays to works. However, the landlord’s offer of £350 towards the resident’s utility bills was within the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance and constitutes reasonable redress. 

Complaints handling

36. The landlord responded to the resident’s stage one complaint within the timescales in their complaint policy. However, the landlord failed to provide the resident with an update on the works as agreed and the resident was put to time and trouble following this up with the landlord by email and telephone. Despite the landlord’s records showing that the resident contacted the landlord on a number of occasions between November 2020 and February 2021 to express his dissatisfaction, his complaint was not escalated until after 17 February 2021 when he raised a new formal complaint.  It is not clear why the resident’s complaint was not escalated at an earlier stage as the landlord’s complaints policy provides that a complaint can be escalated by telephone, email or letter. The landlord’s failure to do so disadvantaged the resident as he was not able to progress in complaint within a reasonable timescale which led to further frustration and a loss of confidence in the landlord.

37. The landlord did update the resident about the progress of his complaint by email on 28 June 2021. Reference is made in the email to further correspondence dated 27 May and a telephone discussion, however this service has not been provided with a copy of these records. The landlord’s stage two complaint response was sent to the resident on 9 December 2021, almost 10 months after his complaint was escalated. This was an unacceptable delay which caused the resident further distress and inconvenience.

38. The Ombudsman accepts that complaint responses can be delayed, particularly where there are staff changes, and would consider such delays to be reasonable where this is adequately communicated to the resident in advance. It is not evident, however, that the landlord communicated in advance that its response would be delayed and the resident was put to further time and trouble in following this up. 

39. Furthermore, the landlord’s complaint response did not provide an overview of the steps it had taken to investigate and resolve the complaint.  Neither did it review how the complaint had been handled with reference to its complaints procedure. The landlord did not offer any other redress to the resident for the inconvenience its complaint handling failings had caused him, or demonstrate that it had learned lessons from its handling of his complaint. Consequently, the landlord did not act in accordance with the Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles; be fair, put things right, learn from outcomes.

40. The landlord’s stage two response letter did not provide clear and accurate guidance about how the resident could refer his complaint to this service. However, the Ombudsman notes that the landlord has since updated its complaints procedure in line with the Ombudsman’s guidance.  

41. In the circumstances, these combined failings amounted to maladministration for which additional compensation is appropriate. It is the Ombudsman’s view that an amount of £350 is therefore appropriate to recognise the impact on the resident particularly in light of the resident’s vulnerabilities.              

Determination (decision)

43. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in respect of its complaints handling.

Reasons

44. The landlord took reasonable steps to satisfy itself that the residents windows had been fitted to industry standard and offered redress for delays in its repairs response which the Ombudsman considers fair. 

45. The landlord contributed to significant delays through the complaints process and failed to fully answer the resident’s concerns.

 

Orders

46. Within four weeks of the date of this report the landlord is ordered to:

a.  pay to the resident an additional £350 in recognition of the failings identified.

b.  update this service when payment has been made.

Recommendation

47. As the resident has raised concerns about mould growth in his property, the landlord should arrange for a surveyor to undertake an inspection within four weeks of the date of this report in order to investigate this further.