London Borough of Ealing (202114284)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202114284

London Borough of Ealing

25 May 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

The complaint is about the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of obstructions to his storage unit.
The Ombudsman has also investigated the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

The resident is a secure tenant of the landlord. The landlord is a local authority. The property is a two bedroom, ground floor flat. The resident has mobility issues and uses a mobility scooter, which he stored in a unit, owned by him, located next to the communal bin room at the block.

Policies and procedures

The landlord’s complaint policy at the time of the resident’s complaint had a three stage process:
1. Stage one – complaints will be responded to within ten working days by a head of service.
2. Stage two – responded to within 20 working days by a director or assistant director.
3. Stage three – responded to within 20 working days by the chief executive.

Summary of events

In June 2019 the resident reported that the communal bin room door had been left open and damaged the door to his mobility scooter storage unit. The landlord attended to close the bin room door and check the damage.
On three occasions between January and August 2021 the resident reported that the bin had been left outside the bin room by the refuse collection people and was blocking access to his storage unit. In response to these reports, the landlord highlighted this to the refuse collection contractor and on two of the occasions asked its caretaking staff to attend to put the bin back.
On 23 August 2021 the resident made a complaint, which said:
1. Since 2019 the communal bin room door had been left open and the large bin left outside on numerous occasions after the bins had been collected. This obstructed the storage unit for his mobility scooter that was next to the bin room, which meant he could not access or make use of his scooter. He had also not been able to charge the battery pack for the scooter for periods of time, which had caused damage to it and he wanted to claim back the cost of a replacement battery.
2. This had most recently happened on 16 August 2021 and he had reported this but nothing had been done.
3. The open bin room door had been banging on his storage unit and caused damage to the paint. He had repainted the damaged area and wanted to claim back the costs for the materials used.
4. The large bin left outside was near his windows and when filled with rubbish it smelt bad and attracted flies.
5. He had reported these issues on a number of occasions and asked if a poster could be put on the bin room door with a reminder to keep it shut but this had not been done.
The resident chased a response on 6 September 2021. He contacted this Service on 21 September 2021 and a letter was sent chasing a response.
The landlord issued its stage one complaint response on 12 October 2021, which said:
1. It apologised for the delayed response and explained the reason for this was because of an oversight in sending the response to him.
2. Any claim for damages would need to be made to the companies who collected the bins (its contractors).
3. It disputed that the bins had been left outside for long periods of time as it provided a weekly caretaking service on the day the bins were collected so they could be put back if left out.
4. Where it was notified about bins being left out it returned to site to put them away.
5. It acknowledged he had reported this dating back to 2019 and said that a responsive site visit had always been carried out in a “reasonable timeframe”.
6. It had asked its contractor to remind the collection crews to put the bins away and lock the doors.
The following day the landlord sent the resident details for the insurance company including the contact details and policy number for him to make a claim.
The resident replied on 13 October 2021 that he was unhappy with the stage one response and reported that the bin had been left outside that day and the door left open. The landlord responded the following day that:
1. It would attend that day to put the bin away and close the door, which it said it did.
2. It would write to residents reminding them about closing the door, which it said it did.
3. It would write to the contractor to ask them to remind the crews collecting the bin to put it back and lock the door behind them, which the records show that it did that day.
In further correspondence on 14 October 2021, the landlord advised the resident that:
1. It had not given him permission to place the storage unit next to the bin room and that it was obstructing the doors from opening fully.
2. It did not accept liability for any damage as it had not given permission for the unit to be placed there.
3. It would investigate an alternative location for the unit. The landlord has since told this Service that it carried out a site inspection but could not find a suitable alternative location.
The resident contacted this Service on 26 October 2021 as the stage one response did not give him the option to escalate his complaint. A letter was sent to the landlord asking it to provide a stage two response within 20 working days.
The resident contacted this Service in November 2021, December 2021 and January 2022 as he had not received a response from the landlord. The Ombudsman issued a Complaint Handling Failure Order (CHFO) to the landlord on 26 January 2022 following its failure to provide a stage two response. On 1 February 2022, the landlord issued its stage two complaint response to the resident, which said:
1. It had responded in a reasonable timescale when he had reported that the bin was left out on 13 October 2021 and had written to its contractor as promised. Since then he had not been back in contact and so it believed this matter was resolved.
2. He had not been given permission to place the storage unit next to the bin room and had he requested permission he would have been told not to put it there as it was preventing the bin room doors from opening fully. It would not be liable for any damage to the unit as it was not aware it was there and had not given permission for it to be there.
3. It would not accept liability for replacing the battery pack as the information given by the resident in his original complaint suggested it was coming to the end of its life and would have needed replacing because of this and not because it had not been charged on a daily basis.
The resident replied that the location of the unit and the cost of building it had been funded by other local authority departments. He said it was not obstructive and that the problem was the people collecting the bin were not closing the door.
On 2 February 2022 this Service told the landlord it could not accept the letter dated 1 February 2022 as its final response to the complaint as it did not clearly say it was the final response or provide escalation details. The following day, the landlord reissued its stage two response, which had the same content as the previous letter but also included that the complaint had not been upheld and escalation details for the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman (LGSCO). The response was also signed by a different, more senior member of staff.
The resident responded three days later that he did not agree with the response and the landlord replied that he had completed its complaints procedure and referred him to the LGSCO.
In April 2022 the landlord said it would be carrying out a site inspection to identify a possible solution to the placement of the storage unit as it was blocking access to the bin room. It visited the resident in November 2022 and discussed relocating the storage unit to the car park area. The landlord advised the resident what he would need to do to progress this and started the process for this by contacting the relevant department.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

The resident has asked to be reimbursed the cost of items he believed the landlord was liable for damaging. The Ombudsman does not have the authority to assess liability in the same way that an insurance process or court might and so cannot consider this request within the scope of this investigation. However, this Service will consider the landlord’s response to this request and what is fair and reasonable in the circumstances, to determine if any service failure has taken place.

Response to the resident’s reports of obstructions to his storage unit.

The records show that between 2019 and 2021 the resident reported that the bin was obstructing his mobility scooter storage unit on five occasions. One of these reports was in 2019 and four over a ten month period in 2021. This would understandably have been frustrating for the resident and would have impacted his ability to use his mobility scooter, which may have restricted his ability to go out when this happened. While it is clear this would have impacted the resident, the number of reports seen does not indicate that this was a persistent problem, particularly when considering that the bin was collected once a week.
In response to the resident’s reports the landlord asked its caretaking team to attend to put the bin back, sent reminders to its waste management contractor and sent a reminder letter to all residents. All of these were appropriate steps to take. The resident said that he had asked the landlord to put a reminder notice on the bin room door, which was a reasonable suggestion, but there is no evidence that this was done or considered. As this issue was not persistent, the landlord would have been entitled to decide not to go ahead with this; however, it would have been appropriate for it show it had considered the resident’s suggestion and responded to it accordingly. As this was not happening regularly and the landlord had taken appropriate steps to resolve and address the individual incidents, this Service deems that its overall response was reasonable.
The resident asked to claim back costs from the landlord for damaged items. The landlord responded that any claim for damages would need to be made to its contractors, which was inaccurate. As the contractor was acting on behalf of the landlord any claim for damages should have been considered by the landlord’s insurers. While the landlord provided an inaccurate and possibly confusing response, it followed up the next day and provided the resident with details of the relevant insurance company, including the contact details and relevant policy number in order to progress a claim. At this time, it would also have been appropriate for the landlord to acknowledge the inaccuracy of its previous response; however, while the landlord’s correspondence would likely have confused the resident, there appears to have been no detriment to him as a result of the inaccurate response given.
When the resident asked the landlord to cover the costs of repairing damage to his storage unit, the landlord responded that it was not responsible for this as the resident had not been granted permission to put the unit there, which in the opinion of this Service was a reasonable position for the landlord to take. The landlord clearly explained that had the resident sought permission it would not have granted this because it was obstructing the bin room doors from opening fully, which was also reasonable. It is noted that the other landlord departments recommended and funded the building of the storage unit; however, it would have been appropriate for these different departments to communicate to ensure that the unit was placed in the most appropriate location and was not causing any obstruction. As the landlord had identified that the storage unit was causing an obstruction it committed to find an alternative location for this, which was appropriate as it recognised the resident’s need for this in order to protect his mobility scooter. In April 2022 the landlord told this Service it would be carrying out a site visit regarding this but the records show that a site visit was not carried out until seven months later in November 2022, with no explanation given for this delay. Despite the delay the landlord was able to identify an alternative location for the unit and the records indicate that it was supporting the resident to progress with seeking permission to relocate the unit to this new location.
The landlord has not provided records of the four contacts made by the resident to report this issue between June 2019 and August 2021 despite being specifically asked for these. Instead, it has provided internal e-mails that reference the reports made. Similarly, the landlord has not been able to provide the reminder letter sent to residents on 14 October 2021 stating that it does not record these. The lack of records indicates that the landlord is not keeping a central record of all resident contact, which is a concern. It is important that landlords keep a record of all contact with residents so it has an audit trail of what it has done so it can account for its actions and decisions as well as for use in any formal action that may be required. While there appears to be no detriment to the resident in this case, it is important that the landlord reviews its position on record keeping and a recommendation has been made below for it to do this.
Overall, there was no maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of obstructions to his storage unit.

Complaint handling

Since the resident’s complaint was dealt with, the landlord has updated its complaints policy, which sets out a two stage process. For stage one complaints it says it will respond within 20 working days, which is not compliant with the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code as this directs landlords to respond within ten working days. A recommendation has been made below in respect of this.
In this case, the landlord responded to the stage one complaint in 36 working days and the stage two complaint in 70 working days, which were over its committed response times. At both stages, the responses were issued after the resident had repeatedly chased the landlord and sought the intervention of this Service, which ultimately led to the Ombudsman issuing a CHFO. The first stage two response issued was from the same person who had issued the stage one response and was missing important information, which meant it could not be accepted as the final response. After further intervention from this Service the landlord reissued the response and while this was done quickly and from a different, more senior member of staff; the contents remained almost identical, suggesting there had been little or no review of the contents by the more senior, independent member of staff.
Overall there was maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling. The whole process was unreasonably delayed, which led to the resident chasing the landlord for a response and escalating to this Service on at least five occasions. While the stage one response apologised for the delay and gave an explanation for this, the stage two response did not. The stage one response did not set out the resident’s escalation rights and caused confusion and frustration over what he could do next if he remained dissatisfied, which resulted in him approaching this Service for help in escalating his complaint. The first response to the stage two complaint provided no escalation rights and was not clear that it was the landlord’s final response and only after intervention from this Service did the landlord confirm this and provide escalation details; although these were for the LGSCO and not this Service. These issues caused confusion and delay for the resident in progressing and escalating his complaint.
The evidence suggests that the same person carried out the investigation at stage one and stage two of the resident’s complaint. The Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code directs landlord’s that different people must consider the complaint at stage one and stage two, which allows for a full and objective review to be carried out. That did not happen in this case and resulted in the resident not being treated fairly. An order has been made below for the landlord to pay the resident £400 compensation, made up of £200 for the distress and inconvenience caused by the delayed complaint handling and £200 for the time and trouble taken by the resident to chase up and escalate his complaint. An order has also been made for the landlord to provide staff training on complaint handling in line with its policy and the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the scheme there was no maladministration in respect of the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of obstructions to his storage unit.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the scheme there was maladministration in respect of the landlord’s complaint handling.

Reasons

The landlord’s overall response to the resident’s reports of obstructions to his storage unit was reasonable, considering that the evidence provided does not indicate that this was a persistent problem. While it gave an inaccurate response regarding the resident’s claim for damages, it followed up quickly with the correct details meaning there was no apparent detriment to the resident.
The landlord’s complaint handling was unreasonably delayed which led to the resident having to repeatedly chase responses and escalate to this Service for intervention, including a CHFO. The responses were missing vital information, including escalation rights and this caused confusion for the resident.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

Within four weeks, the landlord is ordered to:
1. Apologise to the resident for the delay and confusion caused in relation to the complaint handling.
2. Pay the resident £400 compensation made up of:
  1. £200 for the distress and inconvenience caused by the delay to the complaint handling.
  2. £200 in recognition of the time and trouble taken by the resident to chase up and escalate his complaint.
3. Review its complaints policy in line with the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code and complete a further self-assessment.
The landlord should confirm compliance with the above orders to this Service within four weeks of this report.
Within six weeks, the landlord is ordered to provide staff training on complaint handling in line with its policy and the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code. The landlord should confirm compliance with this order to this Service within six weeks of this report.

Recommendations

The landlord to review its approach to record keeping, with particular focus on what resident contact it records and whether it can increase this to include all resident contact.
The landlord should notify this Service of its intentions regarding this recommendation within four weeks of this report.