North Warwickshire Borough Council (202123962)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202123962

North Warwickshire Borough Council

4 July 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 complaint related to the maintenance of the building and her front door and windows.

Background

The resident became a leaseholder of a flat above a commercial property on a high street in 2003, having previously been a tenant. The landlord is a local authority and the freeholder of the resident’s building, as well as 6 other buildings along the street. The building has a Grade II listed status and is in a conservation area.

Scope of investigation

In her complaint to the landlord, the resident has raised concern about how multiple buildings along the street have been maintained. The scope of this investigation is limited to the landlord’s actions in relation to the resident’s property and building, and the landlord’s obligations under the lease agreement.
As part of her complaint, the resident also raised concern about the information she had requested which had been withheld by the landlord, as it considered this to be confidential. This aspect of the complaint is outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction as complaints relating to freedom of information fall properly within the jurisdiction of the Information Commissioner’s Office (www.ico.org.uk). If the resident has further concerns about her request for information, she may therefore wish to approach the ICO.
The resident has advised that she had pursued her concerns related to the condition of the building since 2013. While the Ombudsman does not doubt this, under Paragraph 42(c) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, we may 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. In view of the time periods involved in this case, taking into account the availability and reliability of evidence, this assessment does not consider any specific events prior to September 2020. The historical issues provide contextual background to the current complaint, but the assessment is focused on the landlord’s actions in responding to the more recent events and, specifically, to the formal complaint made in May 2021.
In her communication with this Service, the resident raised additional concern that she had been informed by the downstairs shop on 1 October 2022 that the landlord had placed several buildings on the street, including hers, up for sale. She expressed concern that she had not received any communication from the landlord regarding this. As this is a separate issue to the complaint raised with the Ombudsman, this is not something that this Service can adjudicate on, as the landlord needs to be provided with the opportunity to investigate and respond to this.
In accordance with paragraph 42(k) of Housing Ombudsman Scheme, we will not look at matters which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, fall properly within the jurisdiction of another Ombudsman, regulator, or complaints-handling body. Concerns relating to the decision making process in a local authority’s choice to sell land would be more suitable for the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman (LGSCO). This is because it is the Housing Ombudsman’s remit to investigates local authorities’ activities which directly relate to their role as social landlords. Local authorities’ other activities, which do not directly relate to their role as landlords, fall under the remit of the LGCSO – this would include the local authority’s decision to sell land. As such, the resident may wish to approach the LGSCO in relation to these concerns.

Summary of events

The records provided shows that the resident pursued her concerns about the deterioration of the buildings on 27 September 2020 with her local councillor. She advised that she was expecting a response from the councillor following a previous visit but had heard nothing and was seeking an update. The councillor emailed the resident on 5 October 2020 to confirm that there were plans to complete work to the building but these had been pushed back to spring 2021 due to the impact of Covid-19, the autumn weather and the impact scaffolding would have on the pavement space on the street.
The landlord’s records show that the resident forwarded the conversation with the councillor to it on 17 November 2020, and that a telephone call took place on the following day. The landlord emailed the resident on 19 November 2020 to advise that it would discuss the conversation with various officers and aimed to provide a response within a week. The Ombudsman has not seen any further evidence of communication at this stage.
The evidence provided by the landlord shows that a Resources Board meeting took place on January 2021 and the buildings on the street, including the resident’s property, were discussed. The records of the meeting show that the board was minded to approve works to the buildings subject to further consideration of the budget.
The landlord’s records show that it had instructed an architect to assess and provide a written report on the condition of the buildings, the recommended repairs and associated costs. The report found that the external buildings were generally in a “poor state of repair”. There was evidence of water ingress to a number of buildings and previous rendering works had been undertaken using a cement render, which was incompatible with the construction beneath. It further indicated that extensive cracking and hollows were visible and advised that early repairs were required to prevent more costly repairs in the future as the buildings would continue to deteriorate. The report indicated that works required to the resident’s property, and ground floor shop, included removing and replacing the cement render with a lime render, re-roofing, installing fire separation within the roof voids, window and joinery repairs and external redecoration.
The resident sought an update from the landlord on 1 March 2021 about the expected timescale for works to take place. The landlord responded and advised that a report was submitted to its Resource Board in January, requesting approval for a scheme to undertake the essential repairs required. It explained that the board had deferred approval pending additional information which it was in the process of collating and submitting. It advised that this had delayed any potential start date. The resident pursued this and asked for the expected timescales involved. She also expressed dissatisfaction that she had not been informed of the outcome of the board meeting at an earlier date. The landlord responded and acknowledged that it should have updated the resident sooner. It advised that it would be willing to discuss the possibility of completing works to the resident’s property outside of the potential programme of works.
The resident pursued her concerns with the landlord on 30 April 2021. She advised that someone had attended her property to inspect and asked what was happening in relation to the building works which she had been told would start in spring 2021. The landlord responded on 3 May 2021 and advised that the valuer may require access so that it was able to provide additional information to its board in relation to the works. It noted that its contractor had also attended with a view to provide quotes for repairing or replacing the resident’s windows. The resident continued to ask the landlord to provide a timescale in relation to the larger plan of works, including when the next meeting would take place. She felt that the landlord was putting the works off and delaying the decision making.
The resident has advised this Service that conversations about completing works to her property, including her windows, outside of the larger scope of works took place. She had initially been advised that the larger programme of works could not commence until Covid-19 restrictions lifted as it would not be possible for people to socially distance on the high street with scaffolding in place. The works required to her property would also involve scaffolding and she said that she raised concerns about the cost of putting the scaffolding up twice and limiting social distancing. Under these circumstances, she advised that it would not be right to proceed with works to her individual property outside of the larger programme at this stage.
The resident initially asked for a formal complaint to be raised on 26 May 2021. This was sent to the landlord’s Resources Board. She forwarded her complaint to the landlord again on 6 June 2021 as she had not received a response. She explained the following:
1. She advised that once she became a leaseholder of the property, the landlord had written to her and advised that it wished to replace her front door with a PVC one. She had raised concern that this would not be in keeping with the listed status of the building and was told that if she refused, the landlord would no longer maintain the door. She had heard nothing since and her door had not been replaced or maintained.
2. She advised that some replacement brickwork had taken place where aged sand blocks were replaced with uniform brick, which she did not believe was in keeping with the listed status.
3. She was concerned about the landlord’s “negligence” as to the maintenance of the building and had been raising concerns about the lack of maintenance since 2013. As an example, she had reported that her roof was leaking; this was patched and she was informed that further work would be required but this had not happened. She expressed concern that no structural maintenance work had taken place since she had lived in the property despite the lease being clear that this was the landlord’s responsibility.
4. She advised that she had consistently chased the landlord to find out why there had been no progress and had been passed from one department to another with no resolution. She was informed by her local councillor that works would start in spring 2021 but they had not.
5. She had been advised that, due to the cost of works, the landlord was considering whether the sell the buildings. She understood that the landlord did not feel it was appropriate to share the financial details of a report but believed she had a right to know what discussions took place. She was concerned that this information had been withheld and she had needed to chase the landlord’s staff for updates.
6. She believed that if the landlord had carried out regular inspections and maintenance of the buildings, then the cost would have been significantly less than it now was. She maintained that the landlord had been negligent in its handling of the properties and expressed concern about the cost of the works which would be passed to her as a leaseholder.
The landlord acknowledged the resident’s complaint on 8 June 2021 and confirmed that it would pass her complaint on to the relevant service areas to respond. The resident responded on the same day and advised that she had been passed between departments repeatedly when asking the landlord to take the upkeep of the listed buildings seriously. She had been firmly given the impression that a resolution would be reached with a report to the Resources Board and had previously been given timescales for the works. She expressed concern that no work had been commenced and that the buildings continued to deteriorate. She had not been provided with a timescale of when a decision would be made and when work would commence. She maintained that if the landlord had taken action when she first raised concerns that the cost would be significantly less that it now was. She expressed concern that the minutes of the Resources Board meeting were withheld. She wanted to see evidence of the democratic decisions being made about her property.
Between 14-17 June 2021, the evidence shows that there was communication about the types of works that could be carried out at the property. The Ombudsman has not had sight of a letter sent to the resident on 14 June 2021 from the local authority’s planning application team. It is noted that the resident had initially asked the landlord to provide some clarity around the letter she had received. She had been advised that she would never be able to install gas in her property due to the listed building status but had been advised that her neighbours had been allowed to install gas. She had contacted the landlord for some clarity as she was looking at several options to update the existing heating system. She had been told that someone would write to her to clarify the situation, however, the correspondence seemed to indicate that she had applied to have gas fitted in the property when she had not yet explored this as an option.
The local authority’s heritage and conservation officer responded on 17 June 2021 and provided advice on what type of works require listed building consent and what type of works could be carried out under maintenance and repair from a building conservation perspective. This was to avoid any confusion around the works the resident could and could not carry out on a listed building. The Ombudsman has not seen the communication attached to the email.
The resident responded on the same day to advise that the information was helpful. She asked for some clarity around how the landlord was supported in the maintenance of the buildings and to explain why she had been left arguing to maintain the character of the listing. She raised her concern about being offered a PVC door in the past and noted that the windows were not currently in keeping with the original windows. She had asked that these were replaced with double glazed wooden windows and someone had attended to quote for this work, but she was unsure as to whether there were plans to progress the works.
The resident pursued her complaint with the landlord on 23 June 2021 and asked it to provide an update. The resident wrote to the landlord again on 6 July 2021 as she had not received a response to her complaint or other communication. She maintained that she wanted the issues she had raised investigated through the landlord’s complaints procedure. She included her previous communication with the heritage and conservation officer and noted that she had not received a response.
The landlord issued its stage one complaint response to the resident on 24 July 2021 and explained the following:
1. It understood the resident’s frustration with the seeming lack of progress around the ongoing maintenance issues and that much of the information on this matter was confidential. It confirmed that a confidential report was considered by its Resources Board in March 2021 and it had hoped to begin work to the external fabric of the building that summer.
2. It noted that the buildings affected were of varying ages and conditions, many were listed and all fell within a conservation area. The necessary works were expensive and of a specialist nature, which had constrained ad hoc repairs and maintenance in the past. Members of the Resources Board had asked for further information on the required works, alongside alternative options, before a final decision on the best way forward could be made. The information, including additional surveys, costings and evaluation had now been collated and would be submitted.
3. It confirmed that maintenance work had been undertaken on the buildings recently, including work to some of the windows on the front of the building in May 2021, at which point it had looked at whether repair works could be carried out on the resident’s property. It acknowledged that this was discussed at some length but the resident had decided that it would not be appropriate to carry out such work outside of a more comprehensive programme.
4. It advised that while it was waiting for the board’s decision, it was commissioning some interim works to the roof of the buildings which would be undertaken in late summer/early autumn. Until its Resources Board confirmed its decision on a wider scheme of work, it was unable to provide any more detail.
5. It noted that the other issues raised by the resident seemed to date back some time and involved different departments. Many staff members would have since left the business and it was difficult for it to ascertain the information the resident had been given. It noted that following the resident’s recent request for clarification on listed building restrictions and their impact on her options for renewing her central heating, its planning team had provided additional information.
6. Until its Resources Board had decided on how it wished to proceed, there was little further information it could add. It was keen to preserve the building’s heritage and had liaised with the local authority’s conservation officer to arrange a specialist architect to oversee the project. It would consult further with tenants, residents and businesses and keep her informed of the next steps.
The resident expressed dissatisfaction with the landlord’s stage one complaint response on 26 July 2021. She explained the following:
1. The complaint response failed to investigate or respond as to why her original complaint was not responded to or why another member of staff had not responded to her concerns about how work to her door and windows would be progressed. She noted that her lease said that the landlord was responsible for maintaining these and they were not within the scope of work being considered by the Resources Board.
2. She understood that some parts of the report needed to be confidential due to financial contracts but did not feel that the whole section of this meeting needed to be confidential. She felt that the landlord’s Resources Board had over applied its ability to withhold information and wanted the notes of the meeting to be published to reflect transparency.
3. She accepted that there was likely to have been some staff turnover but doubted the landlord’s claim that there were no records of the work that had been carried out previously. The blocks used to replace the original sandstone blocks were not in keeping with the listed building requirements. She asked who had authorised the works and how the landlord would make sure this did not happen in the future.
4. She had also previously received a letter advising her that the landlord would replace her door with a PVC one. Since she had refused this, her door had not been maintained or repaired, and now had bits missing. She maintained that there must be a copy of this letter on file and asked what the landlord would do to prevent this happening again.
5. She advised that she had been raising her concerns since 2013 and had been ignored and the matters had not progressed despite multiple complaints.
The landlord acknowledged the resident’s complaint on 2 August 2021 and confirmed that it would respond within 20 working days. It advised that the complaint handler would be on annual leave for 2 weeks from 6 August 2021.
The landlord issued its stage 2 complaint response to the resident on 24 September 2021:
1. It apologised for its delayed response and the delay in responding to the resident’s prior emails. It acknowledged that it had initially received the resident’s complaint on 26 May 2021, but that it had not responded before the resident needed to chase this further. Her subsequent response was then not acknowledged until 12 July 2021 for which it apologised.
2. It agreed that it had undertaken short-term responsive repairs to the buildings rather then develop a longer term plan. It did not believe that this breached the lease agreement. It had discussed the resident’s complaint with its planning team in relation to the heritage issues. They confirmed that the building had never been at risk nor did they have concerns about the condition of the building from a listing perspective.
3. It apologised for any confusion caused by the letter sent on 14 June 2021. This was sent in relation to queries the resident had raised about what works could be undertaken and a more detailed letter was sent shortly after.
4. It acknowledged that there would come a point where its approach to the building would need to move from responsive repairs to a comprehensive approach as extensive repairs became necessary and responsive repairs became less viable. It noted that the resident wanted the landlord to come to this position earlier than it had but this did not make its approach unreasonable. It was now seeking to develop the comprehensive view but given its financial restraints and the nature of the building, this would take some time. It confirmed that, in the meantime, the resident’s position under the lease would be maintained.
5. It noted the resident’s comments about meetings being confidential but did not feel this was unreasonable. A landowner was entitled to consider its position on such matters and its decision making process needed to involve democratically elected councillors, which necessitated formal meetings. There were certain categories of information that local authorities could decide to consider in private session and it would contact the resident once it had confirmed the options in relation to the works.
6. It apologised if aspects of its communication, over the period the resident had lived at the property, had fallen below the expected level. It agreed that a PVC door would not have been appropriate and would not have been approved in the setting. It acknowledged that the resident had communicated with a member of staff and that there had recently been a reasonable level of communication. It confirmed that the resident could approach the LGSCO if she wished for her complaint to be considered further.
Following this, the resident emailed the landlord on 7 October 2021 and explained the following:
1. She noted that the landlord had acknowledged the delay in responding but advised that this was a regular occurrence and asked what it would do to prevent delays in the future.
2. She advised that her front door was falling to bits and letting the rain in and she was unable to open the windows as the wood was rotten. She did not want these repaired but replaced with energy efficient double glazing. She did not feel that the current windows were in line with the heritage of the building. She had initially agreed to wait for the main works to be undertaken and for her repairs to be included within the schedule to reduce the cost of needing to place scaffolding twice. However, this was when she had been advised that the main works were due to take place in the spring of that year. No one had come back to her to discuss her repair issues and she did not believe that the landlord was committed to maintaining her position under the lease.
3. She advised that the staff member she had been communicating with in relation to the issues had not kept her up to date. She had to call and chase to find out why matters were not progressing. The staff member knew of the issues with her front door and windows and the delay in the work. They had not followed-up on these issues.
The landlord responded on the same day and explained the following:
1. In relation to delays, it endeavoured to respond as soon as it could. Where cases required more in depth understanding of a topic, then this could take further time, particularly when multiple staff were involved and during peak holiday period. It did not have large departments and a number of issues were being dealt with by individual staff members.
2. On repairs, there was a difference between the obligations under the lease and improvements. It had passed the information about rain coming through the resident’s front door on for a repair to be considered. The issue about replacing the windows was part of the wider works that it was discussing. It had nothing to add to its previous response. It had passed the resident’s comments about communication on. It was not sure how often the resident wanted an update but until it had resolved the overall issue of its approach to the buildings then there would be no updates.
The landlord’s internal records show that the front and rear of the buildings had been scaffolded in December 2021 to allow urgent safety works to the roof to take place. This included ridges, verges, valleys and flashings, and glazing repairs. On 23 December 2021, it noted that the scaffolding to the front had been removed and the scaffolding to the rear would be removed shortly. It had agreed to replace the resident’s external door and first floor kitchen window as they could not be satisfactorily repaired. A specialist contractor attended the resident’s property in January 2022 to inspect the windows for replacement. The landlord confirmed that it wished for the contractor to proceed with works on 1 February 2022.
The resident referred her complaint to this Service in January 2022 as she remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s lack of maintenance to her property and surrounding listed buildings. She was told that works would be completed from March 2021 but this had not progressed due to the costs involved. She expressed concern that heat from her property escaped through her windows and doors due to a lack of repair or maintenance. She was dissatisfied with the amount of time and trouble she had spent pursuing her concerns and wanted transparent information about the decision making process for the property. She noted that she would be expected to contribute towards the cost of any external works in line with her lease agreement and wanted to know how much this would be, when works would be expected and what would be done.
The landlord’s records show that it was provided with plans for the replacement window and door on 28 April 2022 by its specialist contractor. On 11 May 2022, the contractor informed the resident that it had experienced some supplier delays and the replacements, scheduled for the week commencing 16 May 2022, had been delayed. The resident has advised this Service that the window and her front door were replaced between 13-15 June 2022.

Assessment and findings

Policies and procedures

The resident’s lease states that the landlord is responsible for maintaining and repairing the main structure and exterior of the property, including the foundations and the roof. It would also be responsible for the external decoration of the property and communal parts.
The landlord’s website confirms that the landlord has a two-stage formal complaints process for housing complaints. At stage one, the landlord should respond within 10 working days. If a resident remains dissatisfied, they can escalate their complaint to stage 2. At stage 2, the landlord should respond within 20 working days. It also has an alternative complaints procedure for other complaints that do not relate to its housing functions. At each stage, the landlord should respond within 20 working days. If the landlord needs additional time to investigate the complaint, it would be expected to contact the resident, explain the reason for the delay and provide a new timeframe for response.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s complaint related to the maintenance of the building and her front door and windows

In her communication to this Service, the resident has advised that she remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s communication in relation to the works required to the property and its lack of maintenance, the time and trouble she had spent pursuing information and repair issues related to her front door and windows.
It is not disputed that the landlord was responsible for the maintenance and repair of the external structure of the building. The architect’s report of February 2021 found that the external buildings were generally in a “poor state of repair”. The report indicated that works required to the resident’s property and ground floor shop included removing and replacing the cement render with a lime render, re-roofing, installing fire separation within the roof voids, window and joinery repairs and external redecoration. While it is noted that the report indicated that repairs were required to prevent the ongoing deterioration of the buildings, there is no evidence to suggest that any emergency repairs were required to prevent any immediate health and safety risks at this stage, which may have prompted the landlord to take immediate action under its responsive repairs service.
Given the substantive nature of the works required to the buildings, the costs involved and the added complication of the buildings having a listed status and being within a conservation area, it was reasonable for the landlord to seek approval for the programme of works through its Resources and Executive Board and consider the options available to it. It is beyond the remit of this Service to determine how a social landlord uses its resources.
While it is acknowledged that the resident spent considerable time and trouble pursuing updates about when work would take place, the landlord was limited in the actions it could take in relation to the substantial works until a decision had been made by its board members. This was somewhat outside of its control. The landlord acted appropriately by apologising for its initial failure to keep the resident updated following a board meeting in January 2021. However, it would have been helpful, given that it was waiting on its board members’ decision, for the landlord to have confirmed the dates of the board meetings and when the resident could expect to receive an update to prevent additional time and trouble being spent by her. There is no evidence to suggest that the landlord had made a firm decision as to whether works would be approved at the time of its stage two complaint response – as such, it was reasonable for the landlord to confirm that it was unable to provide a substantive update.
The landlord also acted reasonably by addressing the resident’s concern about the upkeep of the building in relation to its listed status. It confirmed that it had discussed the matter with its planning team, who confirmed that the building had not been at risk, nor did they have concerns about the condition of the building from a listed perspective. While the landlord was entitled to rely on the opinion of its qualified staff when confirming its position, it would have been appropriate for the landlord to have been more specific in relation to the resident’s concerns about the brickwork not meeting the listed building requirements. This would have demonstrated that it had fully investigated her complaint.
It is understandable that the works required to the building would cause concern for the resident, who would have been worried about the costs she would incur for repair charges, and possible major works, in line with her lease agreement. She believed that the cost of the works required were higher due to the landlord’s previous failure to complete maintenance of the buildings.
It is not clear as to whether the cost of the works were due to past neglect as the resident has alleged. It is also not within the remit of this Service to determine the reasonableness of the service charge incurred by leaseholders. Complaints that relate to the level, reasonableness, or liability to pay rent or service charges are within the jurisdiction of the First-Tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) and the resident would be advised to seek free and independent legal advice from the Leasehold Advisory Service (LEASE) (https://www.lease-advice.org/) in relation to how to proceed with a case.
While it was unable to progress the major works being considered by its Resources Board, the landlord would still have an obligation to ensure that the current condition of the buildings did not pose a significant health and safety risk and carry out responsive repairs where necessary. The landlord demonstrated that it acted in line with its obligations by carrying out responsive repairs to some of the windows of the buildings in May 2021 and commissioning work to the roof of the buildings, which took place in November-December 2021. This occurred as repairs became more urgent and were required outside of the larger proposed programme.
While it is not disputed that the resident had initially concluded that it would not be appropriate to complete works to her property outside a larger programme of works in May 2021, as the replacement of the resident’s door did not form part of the larger scope of works, it would have been appropriate for the landlord to have set out its intentions and proposed next steps within its complaint responses to her. While references to appointments for inspections of these elements have been made by the resident in her communication, the landlord has not provided evidence to this Service as to how it satisfied itself that the door and window were safe in their current condition and could wait until an unknown future replacement date, or whether it considered carrying out temporary repairs in the interim.
The resident had asked the landlord to provide information on how the works to her property would be progressed within her escalation request on 26 July 2021. It is noted that the door and window repair/replacement were outstanding at the time of the landlord’s stage 2 complaint response on 24 September 2021. It would have been appropriate for the landlord to have proactively set out the actions it was willing to take to progress the replacement of the resident’s front door and window, outside of the potential larger programme of works as previously offered, given that it did not know if and when the larger programme of works would be approved. The landlord failed to address this aspect of the resident’s complaint within its response which led to additional time and trouble being spent by the resident in pursuing her repair concerns following the complaint. This was likely to have caused her further inconvenience.
In terms of the landlord’s handling of the complaint, the resident initially raised a complaint on 26 May 2021. She needed to spend additional time pursuing the complaint on 23 June 2021 and 6 July 2021. The landlord issued its stage one complaint response on 24 July 2021, approximately 42 working days later and outside of its policy timescales. The resident asked for her complaint to be escalated on 26 July 2021. The landlord issued its stage two complaint response on 24 September 2021, which was outside of its policy timescale at stage 2 by 24 working days.
While the landlord took steps to acknowledge its delayed communication within its stage 2 complaint response and acted fairly by apologising, it did not explain the reason for the delay or manage the resident’s expectations of when she would receive a response from the outset. Nor has it demonstrated that it had taken points of learning from the complaint or established how it would lessen the likelihood of similar occurrences happening in the future. It would have been appropriate for it to have offered redress in the form of compensation to the resident in recognition of the inconvenience caused.
In summary, there was service failure by the landlord in respect of its response to the resident’s complaint related to the maintenance of the building and her front door and windows. While it acknowledged delays in its complaint responses and communication, it is the Ombudsman’s view that financial compensation is warranted in recognition of the time and trouble the resident spent pursuing both her complaint and the repairs/replacement of her front door and window.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure by the landlord in respect of its response to the resident’s complaint related to the maintenance of the building and her front door and windows.

Reasons

While the landlord took steps to acknowledge its complaint handling and communication delays, it failed to offer redress to the resident in recognition of the time and trouble she had spent pursuing her concerns. While it was unable to progress the substantial works to the building, due to it awaiting approval from its Resources Board, it could have done more to manage the resident’s expectations around its communication and progressed works to the resident’s door and window at an earlier stage given that it did not know if, or when, the major works would be approved.

Orders

Within four weeks of the date of this report, the landlord is to:
1. Write to the resident and apologise for the failings identified within the report. It should also confirm its current position in relation to the works and possible sale of the building.
2. Pay the resident £350 in recognition of the inconvenience caused to her by the delays in handling the complaint, inadequate communications and the failure to progress repairs to the front door and window.
The landlord is to provide evidence of compliance with the above orders to the Ombudsman within four weeks.

Recommendations

It is recommended that the landlord considers carrying out staff training for complaint handlers to ensure that residents are adequately updated on the progress of their complaint if there is likely to be a delay and a new timescale for response is provided in order to manage their expectations.
The landlord should confirm its intentions in relation to the above recommendation within four weeks.