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

Solihull Metropolitan Borough Council (202124959)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202124959

Solihull Metropolitan Borough Council

28 March 2024

 

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 handling of reports of outstanding repairs in the property.
  2. The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s communication and handling of the resident’s complaint in this investigation.

Background

  1. The resident is a secure tenant of the landlord. She has lived in the 2-bedroom terraced house with her family since 2008.
  2. The resident brought her complaint concerning repairs to the landlord on 5 February 2022. The resident contacted the Housing Ombudsman as she had not received a response from the landlord. The landlord visited the resident and sent its stage 1 response with an agreed action plan for the repairs on 21 February 2022.
  3. The resident contacted the Housing Ombudsman again as she had not seen progression of the agreed repairs. The landlord visited on 21 November 2022 and arranged an emergency electrical inspection. This resulted in the upstairs electrics being isolated to make safe. The landlord offered the resident temporary lighting and a temporary move, the resident declined both. Following this visit the landlord put in measures to complete works. It also offered the resident a permanent move, which the resident accepted. The resident moved in mid-December 2022.
  4. The resident raised concerns about the landlord’s handling of the outstanding repairs. The landlord apologised for the lack of action on the repairs. It offered the resident £2,500 which she refused and asked the Ombudsman to start an investigation.

Assessment and findings

  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.
    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’.

Scope of the investigation.

  1. The Ombudsman acknowledges the landlord has issued previous complaints responses regarding the resident’s repairs. This report acknowledges but will not reconsider the information from the previous complaints. The investigation will solely focus on matters from 5 February 2022 onwards.

The landlord’s handling of reports of outstanding repairs in the property

  1. Under section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act (1985) the landlord is responsible for keeping the structure, exterior, and installations of the property in good repair. The resident’s tenancy agreement also confirms this.
  2. In the landlord’s online repairs information, it states it aims to give a high-quality customer focused repair and maintenance service. The landlord’s online repairs information states it gives different priorities to different repairs. These are:
    1. priority 1 are repairs which if left would put people in danger, make homes unsafe, damage the property. These should be completed within 24 hours
    2. priority 2 are split into 3-7 days. Repairs to be completed in 3 days are things like loose or detached banisters, rotten timber flooring, or stair treads. 7 days would be a repair like a leaking roof
    3. priority 3 are other internal repairs to be completed within 28 days
    4. priority 4 are external works, for example guttering and downpipes to be completed within 90 days
  3. The landlord has provided the Ombudsman with evidence of historical repairs raised by the resident. However, this report remains focused on matters from 5 February 2022. As part of the landlord’s response to the resident’s complaint the landlord visited the resident and agreed an action plan for these repairs. As the resident did not escalate her complaint to stage 2 it can be deemed, she found the plan acceptable. The plan outlined the landlord would complete:
    1. a roof survey
    2. downstairs toilet repairs
    3. repairs to the bottom of the stairs
    4. replacement of a new internal front door and frame
    5. installation of a new passive vent in the bedroom
    6. an inspection of the flat roof
    7. a referral for the resident to have a new kitchen and bathroom by the end of the calendar year
    8. a referral for new windows, it hoped to complete by the end of the calendar year.
  4. The Ombudsman has seen evidence the landlord carried out a visit on 4 May 2022 but has been unable to ascertain what was discovered or resolved as records were not provided or kept. However, in its complaint responses the landlord acknowledged by November 2022 it had only completed the flat roof repair. By not adhering to the agreed action, the landlord undermined its relationship with the resident. This would have reasonably meant the resident lost confidence in the landlord.
  5. As the complaint progressed, the resident reported damp and mould. The landlord arranged a damp report, and this led to the landlord offering what it considered to be appropriate treatment by way of anti mould paint. The resident had refused this, as she had done previously. The Ombudsman cannot determine whether this was right or wrong, however it is to be noted the property is the landlord’s and the landlord is entitled to conduct the repairs it deems fit. The resident should always seek permission before carrying out any works on the property, in line with the ‘right to make improvements’ section of the tenancy agreement.
  6. It is reasonable to accept the resident had valid concerns about the safety of the property as when the landlord visited it had to make the property safe. The Ombudsman is unable to determine for how long the property was not safe, acknowledging it has seen evidence, although not the service report, of an electrical inspection raised in May 2022.
  7. The resident raised her concerns, the landlord responded and agreed to resolve the issues, it did not do this. It only dealt with the resident’s concerns and recognised its lack of progression with the action plan when things got to crisis point, when the landlord had to isolate the upstairs electrics to make the property safe.
  8. The Ombudsman recognises, once at crisis point, the landlord acted appropriately. It temporarily resolved the safety issue and offered the resident temporary accommodation and lighting. The landlord moved the resident into a property which suited the family’s household needs and covered the costs of doing so. It also fitted carpets and provided some replacement furniture.
  9. The landlord apologised for the resident’s experience, and it recognised it got things wrong. The landlord made efforts to put things right by moving the resident and offering compensation. The compensation level offered by the landlord was in line with what the Ombudsman would award. The landlord was committed to completing the repairs in February, it should have completed most repairs within a month, so this leaves the landlord with 9 months. The Ombudsman would have calculated compensation at 50% of the weekly rent for the 9-month period, plus £750 for the resident’s distress and inconvenience. This is in line with the £2,500 offer. Therefore, the Ombudsman will not order more compensation on this complaint point.
  10. The Ombudsman is concerned it has not seen any evidence of the landlord exhibiting learning from the complaints to stop this situation happening again. This is a key area of the dispute resolution principles and will form part of the determination. Therefore, the Ombudsman will make a finding of service failure.

The landlord’s communication and handling of the resident’s complaint.

  1. The Housing Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code) states in point 5.5 that a complaint response must be sent to the resident when the answer to the complaint is known, not when the outstanding actions required to address the issue, are completed. Outstanding actions must still be tracked and actioned expeditiously with regular updates provided to the resident.
  2. The landlord’s complaint policy commits it to providing the best service it can. It wishes to be told about problems as it gives the landlord an opportunity to learn and improve.
  3. The landlord will respond to complaints within 10 working days, and should the resident remain dissatisfied they will need to escalate to stage 2 within 10 working days. The landlord will then respond within 20 working days.
  4. The landlord did not adhere to the timeframes outlined in its complaints policy in its February 2022 complaint. The Ombudsman gave the landlord a deadline to respond to the resident, which it met.
  5. The Ombudsman has seen evidence the landlord requested a contractor visit to complete the roof survey, fit the passive bathroom vent, and fix the bottom stair. This should have been completed by the contractor in March 2022. The landlord has responsibility to oversee and chase contractors, and ensure raised jobs are completed to an acceptable standard. Therefore, the landlord failed to adhere to 5.5 of the Code, when it did not track and action the agreed plan. The Ombudsman has not seen any evidence it provided the resident with regular updates.
  6. The landlord only realised things were not progressing when things got to crisis point. This meant a further loss in the resident’s confidence in the landlord and it having to manage the situation in a more immediate and pressured environment which likely increased the costs to the landlord.
  7. The resident raised a further complaint at this stage, the landlord produced a 2nd stage 1 response on 1 December 2022 as the resident was out of time to escalate her February 2022 complaint. The resident was dissatisfied with the response and escalated the complaint to stage 2 on 16 March 2022. It was appropriate for the landlord to permit the resident’s escalation request, even though this was outside the timeframes allowed in the complaints policy.
  8. The landlord’s stage 2 complaint response failed to focus on the impact on the resident. The landlord took the opportunity to comment on it offering the resident a 3-bedroom house, the resident was entitled to a larger property due to her children’s ages and this was irrelevant to the complaint. It also explained the amount it spent on the new property. While it could be seen as a sense of how seriously the landlord took the situation, it was not the resident’s concern how much money the landlord had spent. This complaint response would have likely caused further frustration to the resident at a time the landlord should have focused on the impact the situation had on her.
  9. In evidence seen by the Ombudsman the landlord offered the resident £1,000 in compensation. This was not made through the stage 1 complaint process. The landlord took the resident’s dissatisfaction with the compensation offer as part of the reason to escalate the complaint to stage 2, however this should not have been included when it was not part of the stage 1 response.
  10. In the stage 2 response the landlord made an offer of £2,500. The Ombudsman has not seen evidence of what has been included in this figure or how it was arrived at.
  11. The landlord had the opportunity to resolve this complaint swiftly by completing the February 2022 action plan as agreed. The lack of fulfilling its promises was likely to have contributed to the emergency it found itself in. This had a massive impact on the resident and led to a catastrophic breakdown of the landlord and resident relationship. It is frustrating there was not oversight of the action plan and the resident’s complaint was not taken seriously enough. This was illustrated also by the Ombudsman’s involvement being required for the landlord to respond to the resident.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was:
    1. Service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s report of repairs.
    2. maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

Orders

  1. The landlord is to pay the resident compensation totalling £2,800 this is inclusive of any previous compensation offered to the resident. This comprises of:
    1. £2,500 to reflect the impact on the resident’s use and enjoyment of the property and for the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident.
    2. £300 for the landlord’s failure to handle the complaints and communication appropriately.
  2. The landlord is to offer a meeting with the resident, with the opportunity for third party mediation if desired. The landlord should allow for any reasonable adjustments the resident may need. The purpose of the meeting is to re-establish the relationship between the landlord and resident. It will be an opportunity to discuss the way forward for the landlord and resident. The resident is not obliged to attend if she does not wish to, however the Ombudsman recommends this.
  3. The landlord is to review the complaint and identify learning points to ensure a similar situation does not recur across its housing stock. The findings of the review are to be provided to the Ombudsman.
  4. The landlord is to confirm compliance with these orders to the Ombudsman within 4 weeks of the date of this report.