Hackney Council (202210294)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202210294

Hackney Council

9 October 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 concerns the landlord’s handling of the resident’s repairs.
The Ombudsman investigated the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

The resident holds a tenancy agreement with the local authority landlord, which began on 4 November 2017. The property is a bedsit on the ground floor of a residential block. The resident has dyslexia.
Shortly after the resident moved in, he expressed dissatisfaction with the property’s condition. For example, he said the landlord had painted the property during the void period. However, it did not remove the old wallpaper first, meaning the new paint had peeled off. The resident formally complained to the landlord on 16 March 2022. He asked the landlord to repair the property. The landlord sent its surveyor to the property on 25 March 2022 to decide the scope of the required work.
On 28 March 2022, the resident contacted the landlord, stating he was dissatisfied with the surveyor visiting the property. According to the resident, the surveyor said: “This is a council property, not Grand Designs”. The resident said that just because this was a council property did not mean it could not be nice.
The landlord officially responded to the stage 1 complaint on 4 May 2022 and stated its surveyor had instructed its contractor to carry out a significant amount of work at the property, including:
1. paint bathroom walls and ceiling
2. decorate wood, metalwork, and stripping
3. reinstate fittings
4. hack-off, replaster and redecorate the hallway
5. overhaul kitchen units
6. replace UPVC window trims
On 1 July 2022, the resident contacted the landlord and said that operatives left the property after 4 days of work but had not completed the job. He said he had tried his “very best to keep composure, but he had enough”. The landlord sent operatives to inspect the property on 4 July 2022, but the resident denied access, stating he wanted managers to attend instead.
In response, the landlord arranged for a joint visit of its managers and contractors, who attended the property on 11 July 2022. Following the visit, the surveyor reported to the landlord that it had ceased work at the property and left the site due to the resident’s behaviour. The surveyor said he explained to the resident the “council’s standards and the management of public funds”. He told the resident that he would need to allow the contractors to complete the job and that operatives are within their rights to leave if they feel threatened by a resident’s behaviour. During the property inspection, the surveyor said the resident accused him of shaking his head at him. He said: “The resident became very aggressive, lifted his hands and gestured at an uncomfortable range, hurling abuse”.
Later that day, the resident wrote to the landlord and said that the surveyor shook his head at the resident whenever he spoke during the inspection. According to the resident, the surveyor told him his expectations were too high as the property was not in Kensington or Chelsea. The resident said this was not the first time the surveyor had said this to him. In the resident’s words, “Just because the property was in Hackney, it did not give the operatives the right to do a poor job”. The resident told the landlord he wanted a different contractor to complete the job, and he asked to escalate his complaint to stage 2.
Meanwhile, on 9 August 2022, the landlord received a report from its repair contractor that a man fitting the resident’s description on the resident’s estate approached one of the operatives. The man voiced his disdain for the operative, threatened that he would “brick the operative’s van, and threatened the operatives about what he would do if he saw the operative again”. It said it could not verify this was the resident, but it raised the incident so the landlord could investigate.
The landlord sent its final response letter on 15 August 2022. It recognised that works were still outstanding. It explained that the works were stopped initially as the resident challenged the standard of the works. However, as the situation escalated, the landlord needed to conduct an antisocial behaviour (ASB) investigation to ensure the safety of its staff. It said that once the ASB investigation had been completed, it would make a decision on whether operatives could return to the resident’s address.
Both parties informed this service in August 2023 that the works had been completed, except for the bath panel. However, the resident emphasised that following the landlord’s final response letter, he had completed the job himself. He said the landlord did paint the kitchen in August 2023, but this was in response to a leak from above, which had caused damage to the resident’s kitchen in August 2023. To resolve the complaint, the resident would like compensation for the distress and inconvenience caused by the landlord’s handling of the repairs.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

The purpose of the complaint process is to resolve the complaint at the earliest opportunity. Residents are encouraged to raise complaints with their landlords in a timely manner so that the landlord has a reasonable opportunity to consider the issues and reach an informed conclusion on the events which occurred. As issues become historic, it becomes increasingly difficult to unpick the events that took place and how matters were handled.
In this case, the resident sought for the landlord to consider the circumstances and the way in which it handled matters from as early as 2017. Although there is evidence that the landlord knew that decoration works were required at the resident’s property sometime after he moved in, there is no evidence that the resident pursued the issue with the landlord then. Therefore, in the interest of fairness, this investigation has considered the period from the resident’s complaint in March 2022, for which there is sufficient evidence available.

Policies and procedures

The landlord’s Repair policy says routine repairs will be carried out within 21 days.
The tenancy agreement says residents must not abuse, harass, threaten, intimidate, obstruct, or assault any of its agents in person, by phone or email.
The landlord’s Antisocial Behaviour policy reflects the Crime and Policing Act 2014 and defines antisocial behaviour as conduct that has caused or is likely to cause harassment, alarm, or distress. In the event that an allegation was made, the landlord would ensure the accused could give their version of events.
The landlord’s unreasonable behaviour policy set out the process to manage incidents of abusive, offensive, threatening, foul language, violence, or otherwise unacceptable behaviour. It says that before placing a contact restriction, the landlord would provide an informal warning; if the behaviour continues, it may decide to address a resident’s unreasonable behaviour. The resident must be written with a copy of the guidance and a copy of the decision sheet to explain why the decision was made, what it meant to the resident, how long for, and when the decision will be reviewed.
The Ombudsman’s guidance to landlords on managing unacceptable behaviour says all residents should be dealt with fairly, honestly, consistently, and appropriately, including those whose actions are considered unacceptable. The guidance says: “Residents have a right to be heard, understood and respected. Whilst landlords have a duty to protect employees, they also have obligations towards residents. For example, where there are counter allegations against an employee, these need to be investigated properly using the antisocial behaviour policy”.
The guidance says that a landlord should show due regard to the requirements of the Equalities Act 2010 and an individual’s medical conditions and vulnerability. Any restrictions imposed on a resident’s contact should be appropriate to their circumstances. The guidance says the resident should be given an informal warning first, followed by an official warning with an example of the unacceptable behaviour and set out what formal steps may be taken if the behaviour continues.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s repairs

When investigating a complaint, the Ombudsman applies its Dispute Resolution Principles, which include treating people fairly, following fair processes, putting things right, and learning from outcomes. The Ombudsman must first consider whether a failure on the landlord’s part occurred and, if so, whether this adversely affected or caused detriment to the resident. If a failure by the landlord adversely affected the resident, the investigation will then consider whether the landlord took enough action to ‘put things right’ and learn from the outcome.
The focus of this investigation is not to decide whether the resident’s behaviour was unreasonable. The question to be answered is whether the landlord’s decision to suspend the works was fair in all the circumstances. That will be based on whether the landlord had a reasonably held belief that the resident behaved in the way alleged and that the landlord’s decision was within a range of reasonable responses open to it, considering the landlord’s policies and procedures, best practices, and the law.
The landlord has no recorded vulnerabilities for the resident. However, the resident informed this service that he has dyslexia. It is unclear whether the landlord was informed about this issue. The landlord’s unacceptable behaviour procedure notes that when a resident suffers from learning disabilities, the landlord should be cautious not to interpret this as unacceptable behaviour. A recommendation has been made below for the landlord to ensure its resident records are kept up to date to ensure that it incorporates reasonable adjustments into its handling of resident complaints.
The resident raised the complaint with the landlord on 28 March 2022. The landlord sent its surveyor to inspect the property, raised the job, and responded to the resident’s complaint within the time scale set in its complaint policy. This was appropriate.
The work started 6 weeks after the first stage response, 3 weeks longer than the target specified in the landlord’s repair policy. Given the scope of the works the landlord had authorised to be carried out in all the circumstances of the case, this was reasonable.
The resident informed the landlord on 1 July 2022 that work came to a stop on 24 June 2022. The landlord sent its operatives to return to the property within 3 days, but the resident denied access and requested that the surveyors and managers attend instead. The landlord had arranged a joint inspection, which took place a week later. This was appropriate. The landlord had demonstrated that it acted on the resident’s requests in a timely manner.
Following the inspection, the landlord received 2 accounts describing the versions of events that had occurred during the inspection. First, the resident reported that he was offended by the surveyor’s comments and that this was not the first time, as he reported this to the landlord in March 2022.
Conversely, the surveyor told the landlord that works were initially suspended as the resident was confrontational with the operatives. He said he also felt threatened during the inspection and had to leave the property. He said it seemed to him that the issue was not so much with the quality of the work but with the resident’s level of expectations. He alluded that he could not complete the inspection due to the resident’s behaviour.
The landlord has a duty of care towards its employees. This is reflected in its unacceptable behaviour and ASB policies, which oblige the landlord to ensure its employees are able to carry out their duties free from harassment and harm. Following the inspection on 11 July 2022, the operatives advised that the works could be completed in a day. However, the resident would need to vacate the property for the work to continue or for works to be coordinated with estate safety to be on site.
This could have gone ahead; however, on 25 July 2022, the resident requested that the landlord send a different contractor to complete the work. The landlord had considered the request but decided on 5 August 2022 that only the appointed contractor could return to the resident’s property until the ASB investigation had been concluded. The landlord demonstrated that it balanced its duty to protect its employees with its duty towards the residents. This was in line with the Ombudsman’s guidance to landlords on managing unacceptable behaviour and was appropriate.
On 9 August 2022, the landlord received a report from a third party advising it of a serious incident that occurred on the resident’s estate. The landlord had a duty to investigate the incident under its ASB policy. Therefore, suspending all works on the resident’s property on 11 August 2022 was reasonable until it completed its ASB investigation and decided on its next steps.
This service understands that the landlord’s investigation was concluded following a management review on 9 December 2022. By then, the resident had completed most of the work by himself.
While not all of the delays were due to the landlord, and there was evidence of the landlord seeking to resolve the issues and accommodate the resident’s requests. The landlord acted reasonably by suspending the work and conducting its ASB investigation. Overall, there was no maladministration regarding the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reported repairs.

The landlord’s handling of the associated complaint

It is evident that the resident’s frustration of not being heard had accumulated. He contacted the landlord several times, expressing his frustration about the lack of updates from the landlord. The Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code says: Where residents raise additional complaints during the investigation, these should be incorporated into the stage one response if they are relevant and the stage one response has not been issued. Where the stage one response has been issued, or it would unreasonably delay the response, the complaint should be logged as a new complaint.
The resident complained about the surveyor’s comments to the landlord a week before the landlord had issued its stage 1 response. However, it failed to respond to the resident’s comments. The landlord had also failed to address the resident’s second report that the surveyor repeated similar language a month before the landlord issued its stage 2 response.
The Ombudsman Complaint Handling Code says residents must be given a fair chance to set out their position and comment on any adverse findings before making a final decision. In this case, the landlord informed the resident in its final response letter that an allegation had been made concerning his behaviour. While it is clear that the landlord had a reasonably held belief that the resident had behaved in the way alleged, it had not given the chance for the resident to discuss the allegations. At the same time, it had not responded to the resident’s previous complaints.
The Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code say landlords must address all points raised in the complaint and provide clear reasons for any decisions. The surveyor’s alleged language was a key issue for the resident. These comments were not appropriate, and the landlord should have demonstrated that it took the allegation very seriously by investigating and responding to them in full. The landlord has failed to do so, and this was not appropriate.
The resident’s frustration of not being heard and understood and not being given a chance to state his position on the case had an accumulative impact on the resident in relation to which this service finds service failure. An order of redress has been made below to put things right for the resident.
Finally, there is no indication that the landlord has ‘learned from outcomes’ in this case or detailed any actions it would take to prevent similar issues from recurring. A further order is made below to address this.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration by the landlord’s handling of the resident’s repairs.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord’s handling of the associated complaint.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

Within 4 weeks from the date of this report, the landlord must write to the resident and outline what it had learnt from the failure identified in this report and what action has been/will be taken to ensure errors such as these are minimised as much as realistically possible. A copy of its letter must be sent to this service.
Within 4 weeks from the date of this report, the landlord must pay the resident £250 in compensation for the distress and inconvenience caused by its failure in its handling of the associated complaint. Proof of payment must be sent to this service.

Recommendations

The landlord should ensure it updates the vulnerability records of its residents to ensure that it incorporates reasonable adjustments into its handling of resident complaints.