The new improved webform is online now! Residents and representatives can access the form online today.

Sandwell Metropolitan Borough Council (202212103)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202212103

Sandwell Metropolitan Borough Council

8 September 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:
    1. The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of structural issues with his property.
    2. The landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

  1. The resident is a secure tenant of the landlord and holds a joint tenancy with his partner. They lived in a 3 bedroom end of terrace property with their children. The resident and his partner both have disabilities. The landlord is a Local Authority (LA).
  2. The landlord had been attending the property from early 2021 to investigate and address concerns the resident had raised about cracks in the walls and ceilings.
  3. The resident made a stage one complaint on 15 March 2022. He complained about the quality of the works carried out and the various repairs issues he had experienced.
  4. On 31 March 2022, the landlord visited the resident to check the quality of the work and inspect the repairs issues with the plastering and the front door. Following this, the landlord made an appointment for an operative to attend the resident’s property on 25 April 2022, tidy up the pointing work and re-plaster the wall by the stairs. On 25 April 2022, the repairs log states that plaster was removed from the right-hand wall to the stairwell. The repair was not completed ‘due to structural issues’.
  5. The resident complained to the landlord on 10 May 2022. He said operatives had taken plasterboard from the stairs and found a hole in the outside wall. He complained that the property was left in a state of disrepair from 25 April 2022, with exposed and loose brickwork on the external wall facing the stairwell. The resident explained that as a result of the dust from the exposed brickwork, he had been sleeping in his car with an extension lead coming from the window plugged into his breathing machine. He complained of gaps around windows and bricks allowing wind to blow through the house. He was also unhappy that the stairs had been left without a handrail, which he felt was unsafe for his family. This resulted in him falling down the stairs, becoming unconscious and needing medical attention.
  6. On 24 August 2022, the resident made another formal complaint about how his property had been left. He said debris had fallen and injured his daughter, causing her to cut her face. On 6 September 2022, the resident referred his complaint to this Service. He stated he wanted the landlord to rehouse him whilst the repairs were carried out.
  7. During September 2022, the landlord liaised with the resident regarding their rehousing requirements. On 23 September 2022, the resident noted that he had not heard from the landlord, and escalated his complaint to stage two saying that the property had been left in a poor state since April 2022, and he was seeking compensation and a move. The landlord acknowledged the complaint on the same day.
  8. The landlord provided its stage two response on 23 November 2022, which addressed concerns about the move. It stated that it consulted with the local housing office and was assured the residents would be moved, as works could not be completed until the property was empty. Therefore, it was unable to give a timeframe for works to be completed as the residents had not yet moved. The landlord confirmed the residents had been given priority banding, were placed on the direct offer list but then removed as their requirements were too specific. It asked them to bid on suitable properties themselves, in order to speed up the process.
  9. The resident has explained that he is dissatisfied with the response because the landlord, ‘left vulnerable people in such a state.’ He would like compensation for the money he had spent on the property, and explains the impact the situation had on his family’s health.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

  1. The resident has raised concerns that the landlord’s handling of his reports of structural damage to his property has affected his physical and mental health. He stated that he fell down the stairs because they were unsafe and was knocked unconscious and falling debris from the stairs injured his daughter. The resident has also explained how the situation has exacerbated his existing mental health conditions. The Ombudsman does not doubt the residents statement. However, it is beyond the expertise of this service to make a determination on a direct link between the landlord’s handling of the reports of structural damage to the property and the resident’s health.
  2. Often when there is a dispute over whether someone has been injured or a health condition has been made worse, the courts rely on expert evidence in the form of a medico-legal report. This will give an expert opinion of the cause of any injury or deterioration of a condition. Without that evidence, this Service is not able to draw any conclusions on whether the resident’s health has been affected in the way described. This question may be better for the courts to decide, where an expert can be cross examined during a live hearing.

Policies and Procedures

  1. This Service has not seen a copy of the landlord’s repairs policy, though notes that the repairs section of the LA website states it is responsible for ‘staircases, bannisters and handrails, and major plastering work’. While the landlord does not have any repair timeframes, best practice is 20 working days for a routine repair. If the landlord considered the work to be a major repair and take longer to complete, it should inform residents of the expected timeframe to manage their expectations.
  2. The tenant handbook, available online, states that in circumstances where a decant is required for major repair work, the landlord will offer suitable alternative accommodation while the work is carried out. The accommodation could be permanent or temporary.
  3. The landlord’s complaints policy states that it defines a complaint as: ‘an expression of dissatisfaction about an act, omission or decision (of the LA) either verbal or in writing, and whether justified or not, which requires a response’. The policy stipulates responses will be provided to complaints at stage one within 10 working days, and 20 working days at stage two.

 

The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of structural damage to his property

  1. When investigating a complaint, the Ombudsman applies its Dispute Resolution Principles. These are high level good practice guidance developed from the Ombudsman’s experience of resolving disputes, for use by everyone involved in the complaints process. There are only 3 principles driving effective dispute resolution:
    1. Be fair- treat people fairly and follow fair processes;
    2. Put things right, and;
    3. Learn from outcomes.
  2. The Ombudsman must first consider whether a failing on the part of the landlord occurred, and if so, whether this led to any adverse effect or detriment to the resident. If it is found that a failing did lead to an adverse effect, the investigation will then consider whether the landlord has taken enough action to ‘put things right’ and ‘learn from outcomes’.
  3. After contractors attended the property on 25 April 2022, structural issues were found which meant re-plastering could not be completed. The landlord inspected the property following this, and an internal email dated 11 May 2022 confirms that the landlord found there were missing bricks to the external wall and a ‘slight’ bulge to the wall. The landlord stated that it had sealed the bare brickwork, arranged to replace the missing bricks and referred the property for a structural inspection.
  4. On 7 June 2022, the structural inspection was completed. There was a delay in this being progressed as the request was not made until 26 May 2022, several weeks after the landlord identified that the inspection was needed. The inspection recommended re-strapping works be carried out. For the works to be carried out, the resident’s family would need to be decanted.
  5. The resident chased the landlord for an update on at least 4 occasions in June 2022, reiterating his concerns about the state of disrepair the property had been left in, safety issues and poor service from the landlord. He reminded the landlord he was disabled, had severe mental health conditions, his partner was heavily pregnant and they had a young family. There is no evidence that the landlord contacted the resident until early July 2022, several weeks after the structural inspection took place. This was a failing, and constitutes an unreasonable delay in communicating with the resident.
  6. It is understood there were some difficulties in finding suitable alternative accommodation for the resident, given his disabilities and his family’s needs. This likely contributed to a delay in works being carried out and meant the resident remained in the property for longer. The landlord acted reasonably in the circumstances by awarding priority banding and rehousing the resident. However, records show that the landlord did not agree to a permanent move for the resident until September 2022. It is unclear why it took the landlord this length of time to decide whether or not to move the resident permanently, and it should have made a decision sooner. This was a failing, and contributed towards the overall distress and inconvenience caused to the resident.
  7. The resident repeatedly raised concerns about the safety of the stairs, due to his disability and young children. The landlord referenced the handrail on 11 May 2022, stating that this had been overlooked, as it was not standard practice to refix hand rails whilst stairs are being replastered. On 26 May 2022, the landlord raised a job for the repair and later stated that the resident refused the work. The next reference to offering an appointment is in the stage two response from 23 November 2022.
  8. The repairs policy states that the landlord is responsible for bannisters and handrails, and that the resident should allow access for repairs. From the evidence, it is unclear what happened, though it would have been appropriate for the landlord to address the handrail repair within a reasonable timescale,. Given the stairs were not being replastered for some time, the resident should not have been left without a handrail and the landlord should have made more robust attempts to ensure this was fitted.
  9. In the stage two response, the landlord apologised for the inconvenience but failed to address the resident’s concerns about the handling of the repairs or the impact of the situation on the resident and his family. The resident repeatedly made the landlord aware of his vulnerabilities, which exacerbated the impact of the situation. Whilst the landlord did recognise the resident’s vulnerabilities by offering a permanent move, as the works could not be carried out with the resident in situ, it did not effectively communicate with the resident and contributed towards delays. Additionally, the landlord has not investigated the complaint about the handling of the works or the condition of the property following the repairs carried out in April 2022.
  10. Therefore, the landlord failed to identify its service failures, failed to consider an offer of compensation and failed to demonstrate that it had learnt from its mistakes. The overall delay in progressing the structural inspection, offering a decant and agreeing a permanent move amounted to several months. There were also communication failures and an unreasonable delay in refixing the handrail. Taking this into account, it is the Ombudsman’s opinion that there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the reports of structural damage to the property, and that compensation of £500 would provide adequate redress. This is in line with the remedies guidance provided by the Ombudsman which states that compensation between £100 and £600 is appropriate in cases where there was a failure which adversely affected the resident and the landlord has made some attempt to put things right but failed to address the detriment to the resident.

 

The landlord’s complaint handling

  1. On 10 May 2022, the resident complained to the landlord about how his property had been left following the 25 April 2022 visit. Using the complaint definition from the landlord’s policy, the landlord ought reasonably to have registered this as a new complaint (or escalated the existing complaint to stage two as the resident remained dissatisfied with the quality of the work). This was a failing which caused an unreasonable delay for the resident.
  2. The resident chased a response to the complaint twice in June 2022. On 7 June 2022, records from the landlord state no complaint had been logged, and the landlord asked if it was able to avoid it or if it would need to log a complaint. This indicates a failing in complaint handling, as the landlord ought to reasonably be aware of its policy criteria for logging a complaint. This further contributed to a delay in the resident receiving a response.
  3. It is noted the resident made an additional formal complaint about the same issues and lack of action on 24 August 2022. This was another opportunity for the landlord to log and respond to the complaint, which it again failed to do.
  4. After the resident contacted the Ombudsman, this service wrote to the landlord on 6 September 2022 setting out the complaint as being about plastering from the wall being removed, a missing hand rail, and the resident’s request for the landlord to re-house him to a property that was structurally safe. This service asked the landlord to respond by 20 September 2022. The landlord replied on 23 September 2023 saying that the matter had been logged at stage 2 and would be responded to. 
  5. The resident contacted this Service on 3 November 2022 because he had not received a response from the landlord. On 11 November 2022, this Service sent the landlord a request for action and gave a deadline of a week to respond. After this deadline was missed, a final chaser was sent to the landlord on 23 November 2022.
  6. The stage two response was provided on 23 November 2022, after involvement from this Service. The response failed to address the substantive issue, only addressing the required decant. Therefore, no response has ever been provided to the resident’s concerns about the events following April 2022 and the condition his property had been left in. The Ombudsman expects landlords to appropriately acknowledge and respond to complaints, adhering to both their own policies and the complaint handling code. This was a further failing, as the response was provided after 44 working days, significantly exceeding the target of 20 working days and it failed to address the resident’s main issue.
  7. Overall, there were significant failings in the landlord’s complaint handling which contributed towards unreasonable delays. The resident repeatedly chased the landlord for a response, and he spent a considerable amount of time and trouble pursuing his complaint. The landlord has contributed towards the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident, and as such orders are made below for compensation.
  8. The compensation ordered is in line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance, where there was a failure which adversely affected the resident and the landlord has failed to acknowledge its failings and made no attempt to put things right.

Determination

  1. In accordance with section 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of structural damage to his property.
  2. In accordance with section 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the associated complaint.

Orders

  1. Within four weeks of the date of this determination, the landlord is ordered to:
    1. pay the resident a total of £900, comprised of:
      1. £500 for the failings identified in the landlord’s response to his reports of structural damage to his property;
      2. £400 for the failings identified in the landlord’s complaint handling;
  2. The landlord should investigate its handling of the repairs following the 25 April 2022 visit and carry out a review of its staff training needs in relation to communication with residents, to seek to prevent a recurrence of the service failures identified by this investigation. The landlord should write to this Service detailing the outcome of this review.
  3. The landlord should review its handling of the resident’s complaint. It should re-train staff if necessary, to ensure that its responses are in-line with the guidance set out in this service’s complaint handling code. The landlord should write to this Service detailing the outcome of this review.