Royal Borough Of Greenwich (202212417)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202212417

Royal Borough Of Greenwich

10 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

1. The complaint is about the landlord’s:
   1. Handling of the resident’s request to get a new front door.
   2. Complaint handling.

Background

2. The resident is a secured tenant of the landlord.
3. The resident wrote to the landlord on 6 August 2022 to enquire about a date for the replacement of her front door. She stated that she had been waiting for fourteen years and that she had been finally informed recently that a new front door would be installed at her property. The resident asserted that her door could not be locked most of the time, that it had been repaired a number of times without success, and that it was not secure.
4. The landlord responded on 9 August 2022 stating that the door had been deemed to be decent and that it did not meet the replacement criteria based on age and condition. It referred the resident to the responsive repairs team if there were maintenance issues. The resident expressed her dissatisfaction with the landlord’s response. She reported insurance and security issues, and the impact of the door’s poor condition on energy efficiency. She chased the landlord as she did not get a response to her email. The landlord replied, referring her again to its responsive repairs team.
5. The resident raised a complaint on 24 August 2022. She explained that she had informed the landlord on numerous occasions that her front door was not fit for purpose but she had not been taken seriously. The resident said the door lock had been repaired a number of times but, as the door did not fit the frame properly, the issue remained unresolved. She stated that the door was not compliant with safety and insurance regulation as the lock was not a five-level mortice deadlock. She also stated that she felt unsecure in her home.
6. As the resident’s email was not logged as a complaint, this Service wrote to the landlord on 9 September 2022 requesting a response. The landlord issued a stage one response on 28 September 2022. The landlord stated that it replaced the front door lock in 2018 and that it had not received further reports of issues with the door from the resident. It explained that it could not find the resident’s complaint in the system. It asked the resident to provide details about who she sent the complaint to so that it could investigate further. The landlord stated a visit to the property had been arranged for 5 October 2022 in order to inspect the front door and make repairs if necessary.
7. The resident escalated the complaint on 6 October 2022. She stated that she had contacted the landlord on numerous occasions following the works in 2018. She provided further details about the complaint raised in August 2022. She complained about the carpenter’s visit to the property the day before, stating that it had recommended repairs but that she wanted a replacement. She stated the issue remained unresolved.
8. A final response was provided by the landlord on 1 November 2022. The landlord acknowledged the resident had made a formal complaint to a member of the staff but it had not been recorded as such. It informed that the carpenter had deemed the door was secure and repairs could be undertaken and, therefore, the door would not be replaced.
9. The resident referred the complaint to this Service on 8 November 2022 as she was unhappy with the landlord’s response to her reports that the front door is beyond repair. As a resolution, she is seeking to get a replacement of her front door.

Assessment and findings

Handling of resident’s requests for a door replacement

10. The landlord’s Repairs Book sets out that, by law, the landlord is responsible for keeping the structure and exterior of the home in good repair. It also specifies that it is responsible for repairs to outside doors and frames.
11. Following the resident’s initial enquiry, the landlord told her on 9 August 2022 that the front door had been deemed decent and that it did not yet meet the criteria for replacement (based on age and condition). Nothing in the landlord’s policies, nor in the resident’s tenancy agreement, states that the landlord is obliged to replace external doors after a certain number of years and, as the landlord has stated, it would only replace them when they are deemed not fit for purpose – based on condition and age.
12. Nevertheless, landlords are expected to inspect the issue, and to follow the advice of its experienced staff, before denying residents’ requests for a replacement. Nothing in the evidence suggests that the landlord visited the property following the resident’s reports of problems with the door. Moreover, the landlord’s records do not indicate works were carried out to the resident’s door since 2017, apart from the replacement of the door lock in 2018. The landlord failed to explain why, or when, the resident’s front door had been deemed to be decent. The resident’s correspondence stated that “most of the time the door cannot be locked”. It also stated that “the door lock has been repaired a number of times but, as the door frame is in disrepair (it does not fit the frame properly), the door is not secure, leaving me unsecure”. It was therefore not enough for the landlord to refer the resident to its maintenance team as she had made the landlord aware of issues with the door, which the landlord should have investigated and responded to.
13. The resident told the landlord about the impact that the condition of the front door was having on her sense of security at home, as well as her mental health. She also said that she was unable to get home insurance as the door lock was not up to the required quality standard. Landlords should respond promptly to any enquiries they receive from tenants, and it was not reasonable for the landlord to have not done so here. Given the seriousness of the issues raised and the considerable impact that the resident’s concerns were having on her, it was a failure by the landlord to simply repeat its previous advice. The landlord should have responded to the resident’s correspondence promptly and addressed the concerns she had raised.
14. Following the resident’s complaint on 24 August 2022, the landlord satisfactorily scheduled an appointment to inspect the resident’s front door.  The landlord’s staff visited the property on 5 October 2022 and reported back that the door was secure and that repairs could be carried out rather than replacing the door. It also informed the resident that it would only replace a door if it is beyond economic repair. Nevertheless, the landlord failed to respond to all the points raised by the resident in its escalation request, as well as to provide a thorough explanation of the outcome of its inspection. The landlord stated that “a repair to the lock and frame can be undertaken”; however, it did not specify the nature of the required repairs, nor did it specify whether these were urgent or not. It was reasonable for the landlord to attempt to repair the door rather than replacing it in the first instance, provided it could be successfully repaired. However, the landlord’s final response should have clearly explained to the resident the findings of its inspection, and to schedule the repairs required, if any, to keep the door in good working condition.
15. The landlord’s stage one complaint response informed the resident that no reports had been found on the system regarding issues with her front door since 2018. The resident rebutted the landlord’s statements in her escalation request, informing that she had called on multiple occasions regarding problems with her front door. In its final response, the landlord acknowledged that the lack of notes on its repair system did not mean the resident had not reported the issue. The landlord apologised and showcased it had learnt from its mistakes. It stated it had reminded its repairs hotline staff of the procedure following calls enquiring about repairs. This Service has not found evidence of repair reports made prior to August 2022, and therefore we consider the landlord’s approach was reasonable. However, the resident’s initial correspondence with the landlord throughout this month should have also been recorded as reports of a faulty door. This constitutes a record-keeping failure, and the landlord failed to put things right by apologising or addressing this failing in its complaint response.

17. The Ombudsman’s approach to compensation is set out in our Remedies Guidance (published on our website). In line with the Remedies Guidance awards of £100 to £600 are appropriate in cases where there have been failings by the landlord which affected the resident but there may be no permanent impact. In view of this, the landlord should pay the resident £200 for its failure to respond to its initial correspondence, its poor communication and its record-keeping failures.
18. In her escalation request the resident stated that she felt discriminated by the landlord based on her age, as her neighbour was getting a new front door even though hers was in worse condition. It is outside the role of this Service to look at discrimination in a legal sense based on whether the landlord failed to act in line with the Equality Act. However, we can look at whether there is any evidence that the landlord has treated the resident unfairly or that it has treated her differently compared to other residents in the same situation.
19. The landlord stated in its final response that it could not share information about why the neighbour’s front door was replaced. It was reasonable for the landlord to explain this as due to data protection regulations, neither the landlord nor the Ombudsman can share personal details of other residents’ without their consent. The landlord however apologised that the resident felt discriminated against and reassured her that it was committed to promoting equality of opportunity and good community relations in the area. The Ombudsman is not questioning the resident’s comments about discrimination. However, we have not seen evidence to suggest that the landlord treated the resident unfairly. There may be a variety of reasons why one resident may receive a new door whereas another resident may not such as the age of the doors and any adjustments residents may need in view of their health and/or disabilities. Therefore, the Ombudsman has not seen sufficient evidence to confirm that the landlord treated the resident less favourably compared to other residents in the same situation.

Complaint handling

20. The landlord failed to log a stage one complaint following the resident’s email of 24 August 2022, where she expressly stated she was submitting a formal complaint regarding the state of the front door at her property. The landlord issued a response on 28 September 2022 following this Service’s intervention. It apologised for not recording the complaint appropriately, investigated the issue and explained to the resident in its final response what had happened. It also reassured her that it had learnt from its failings. Nevertheless, given the potential impact of this failing on the resident, and the delays it supposed to its complaint, the landlord’s response was insufficient, and this Service considers financial compensation would have been appropriate. The landlord is therefore ordered to pay £150 compensation for distress and inconvenience caused by its failures in complaint handling. This amount is in line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance as referenced above.

Determination

21. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in respect of its handling of the resident’s requests for a front door replacement.
22. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure by the landlord in respect of its complaint handling.

Orders

23. In light of the failings found in this report, the landlord is ordered to, within four weeks:
    1. Pay the resident £350 in compensation. This is comprised of:
       1. £200 for its failure to respond to the initial correspondence, its poor communication and its record-keeping failures.
       2. £150 for its poor complaint handling.
    2. Arrange an appointment to inspect the front door frame for disrepair and consider if any remedial work or a replacement is required.
    3. Arrange a locksmith appointment to inspect the front door locks and consider if any remedial work or replacement is required. As a minimum, the locksmith should ensure that the mortice deadlock meets the BS3621 standard.