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

Bolton at Home Limited (202225369)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202225369

Bolton at Home Limited

24 January 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 the resident’s reports of damage to the perimeter wall.
  2. The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

  1. The resident is a secure tenant at the property, which is a 2-bedroom flat on the first floor of a low rise block. The landlord is a housing association, which owns and manages the property. There is a perimeter wall with railings surrounding the rear of the estate where the resident lives.
  2. On 4 June 2021, the resident reported that a vehicle had collided into the perimeter wall, making it unsafe due to the exposed broken bricks and railings. The landlord attended on 5 June 2021 but did not complete the repair on this date.
  3. The landlord and contractor exchanged several emails between 13 September 2021 and 30 November 2021 planning how to go about repairing the damaged wall. They discussed how there were trees obstructing the area where the contractor needed to complete the work, and they suspected the trees might be subject to tree preservation orders. An internal email from the landlord dated 30 November 2021 stated the work would need to be revisited “sometime in the new year”.
  4. The resident raised a stage 1 complaint on 28 September 2021, in which he said:
    1. The landlord had not made the area safe when it attended on 5 June 2021, as it had not removed any of the bricks from the floor.
    2. He had posted photographs to social media on 16 June 2021, and the landlord had told him the repair was being dealt with urgently. However, the work remained incomplete.
    3. He was worried that people would hurt themselves because they had started walking through the gap where the wall was missing.
    4. He had spoken to the landlord that day (28 September 2021) and it had raised a further emergency appointment to make the area safe.
    5. He would like the repair to be completed as soon as possible to resolve his complaint.
  5. The landlord issued its stage 1 complaint response on 30 November 2021, in which it:
    1. Acknowledged the resident had requested another repair on 28 September 2021 to make the area safe, and that it had provided him with no response or communication about this.
    2. Said it had chased the work with its contractor on 17 November 2021.
    3. Confirmed it was unable to prioritise the repair because there was no health and safety risk, and that it had put the work on hold due to its backlog of more urgent repairs.
    4. Explained how the resident could escalate his complaint to stage 2 if he remained dissatisfied.
  6. The resident reported the issue to the landlord again on 21 January 2022. The landlord responded on 25 January 2022, stating it was still unable to prioritise the repair. It told the resident to contact it again if it had not completed the repair by July 2022.
  7. The resident called the landlord again on 22 June 2022 and 9 August 2022 chasing an update to the repair. The resident told the landlord some work had been done, but the job was incomplete.
  8. The landlord exchanged emails with its contractor between 9 August 2022 and 10 August 2022. The contractor told the landlord it had visited a few months prior and found partial work completed, so it had abandoned the job. The contractor said it would need to resurvey the area before completing any more work.
  9. The resident sent a stage 2 escalation request to the landlord on 16 August 2022, in which he:
    1. Provided a history of his reports to the landlord about the repair.
    2. Said he had spoken to the landlord at length on 9 August 2022 and it had told him it would review the issue and contact him. However, he received no response and, upon contacting the landlord on 16 August 2022, he discovered the landlord had no record of the discussion.
    3. Confirmed he wanted the landlord to provide an explanation for the delays and to tell him when it would complete the job.
  10. The landlord wrote to the resident on 17 August 2022, stating it had tried to call him several times but the calls had been terminating immediately without connecting. The landlord said its senior project manager would provide an update in due course about completion of the work.
  11. The resident called the landlord again on 15 September 2022 asking for an update. He told the landlord he was unhappy at not being contacted as promised.
  12. The landlord completed a site visit on 20 September 2022 and met with the resident. As a result of the visit, the landlord ordered 4 wrought iron fence panels for installation.
  13. The landlord issued its stage 2 response on 23 September 2022, in which it said:
    1. It had visited the site on 20 September 2022 and found it had already rebuilt the damaged brick pillars but the bricklayers had left some debris, which it would remove within 5 working days.
    2. Following the site visit, it had ordered 4 wrought iron panels, which would take up to 6 weeks to be made and fitted.
    3. It recognised it had not communicated regularly with him about the matter, and apologised for this.
    4. It would like to offer him £50 compensation for the lack of communication and his time and trouble.
    5. He could contact this Service for an independent review if he remained dissatisfied.
  14. The resident duly made his complaint to this Service on 14 February 2023.
  15. The resident emailed the landlord, his MP, and this Service on 1 March 2023 stating he had received no further updates on the work.
  16. The landlord had an internal meeting on 7 March 2023, determining that the work would start on 13 March 2023. The landlord updated the resident about this by letter.
  17. On 3 April 2023, the landlord completed all outstanding work.

Assessment and findings

Repair of perimeter wall

  1. Section 6 of the landlord’s repairs policy (“completing your repair”) says that it will prioritise repairs and provide timescales based on urgency. The policy classifies repairs as follows:
    1. Emergency repairs, which need immediate attention due to potential health and safety risks or the risk of significant property damage. For example, an uncontainable leak or no heating or hot water. The timescale for these repairs is between 4 and 36 hours.
    2. Repairs which are urgent, but do not pose an immediate risk. For example, a containable leak or the toilet not flushing. The timescale for these repairs is 7 calendar days.
    3. Responsive repairs, which are straightforward and non-urgent. For example, patch plastering or a replacement of a kitchen unit. The timescale for these repairs is 21 calendar days.
    4. Routine repairs, which are complex and non-urgent but cannot be left until a planned capital investment. For example, a full replacement kitchen or a replacement front door. The timescale for these repairs is 90 calendar days.
    5. Planned maintenance and capital investment, which include major replacements or substantial improvements. There are no timescales for these.
  2. In its case file to this Service, the landlord has said it did not install temporary fencing while awaiting full repair because it had assessed the area as posing no threat to health and safety. It added that “the wall and railings are not a security feature of the estate and are in place to mark the rear boundary. The estate has open access from the front and therefore is available for anyone to enter”.
  3. While the landlord has told this Service it completed a health and safety assessment, there is no evidence of this in the landlord’s internal notes or in its correspondence to contractors or the resident. It would have been appropriate for the landlord to complete this when the resident first reported the repair so it could appropriately classify the repair and decide upon a timescale.
  4. The landlord initially attended the site on 5 June 2021, which was within 1 calendar day of the resident’s report. The landlord says it made the site safe on this date, but the resident disagreed with this, writing in his stage 1 complaint on 28 September 2021 that the landlord did not remove any of the loose bricks. The landlord told the resident on 28 September 2021 it would raise another appointment to make the site safe, but it did not complete this.
  5. The landlord later said in its stage 2 response on 23 September 2022 that its bricklayers had left debris at the site when they attended. This is further evidence that the landlord had not made the site safe as it had claimed. It is reasonable that the resident may have had valid concerns about the potential for injury or antisocial behaviour with loose brickwork and debris being left near his home.
  6. Section 6 of the repairs policy says that, in cases where it cannot complete the repair on the first visit, it will “ensure the property is safe and secure and arrange another appointment to complete the repair at your [the resident’s] convenience”. Regarding external works, section 6 of the repairs policy says the landlord may provide residents with a “timescale for completion instead of an appointment”.
  7. Following its first visit on 5 June 2021, the landlord did not provide the resident with any details about a timescale for completion of the works. The landlord later told the resident in its stage 1 response dated 30 November 2021 that it was not prioritising the work due to the high workload its contractor had. Whilst it is reasonable that the landlord may have deemed this work non-priority, it should have still made the site safe and provided the resident with an approximate timescale for repair. The landlord failed to do both these things in this case.
  8. The landlord’s internal emails, and the emails between it and its contractor, highlight a lack of consistency with the planning for the repair. In the space of 4 emails sent from 28 September 2021 to 30 November 2021, the landlord’s position changed from it being unsure if the trees were subject to preservation orders; to confirming it could not interfere with the trees; to confirming that no interference with the trees was required for completion of the job; to questioning again what was to be done about the trees.
  9. The landlord showed no initiative in its handling of the repair and, aside from discussing the issue of the trees with its contractor, only took action when the resident called to ask for updates. In response to the resident’s update request on 21 January 2022, the landlord told the resident to contact it if the repair was still outstanding in July 2022. Rather than taking responsibility for the repair, the landlord was putting the responsibility onto the resident.
  10. The landlord did not provide the resident with an update until 20 September 2022, when it visited the site in response to his call on 15 September 2022. The resident had requested previous updates on 22 June 2022 and 9 August 2022, to which the landlord did not respond.
  11. The landlord said in its stage 2 response dated 23 September 2022 that it had ordered replacement railings, which would take up to 6 weeks to be made and fitted. Despite this, it did not complete the job until 3 April 2023. The landlord did not treat the repair with urgency until March 2023, which was after the resident had duly made his complaint to this Service on 14 February 2023.
  12. There was also poor record keeping and communication between the landlord and its contractors. When the landlord asked its contractor for an update on 9 August 2022, the contractor told the landlord they had cancelled the job because they had attended a few months prior and found the work partially completed. The landlord did not have adequate record keeping to confirm which of its contractors had completed this partial work, or when; and the contractor did not inform the landlord that it had cancelled the job until the landlord queried this several months later (at the request of the resident).
  13. In total, it took the landlord 668 calendar days to complete the repair following the resident’s report on 4 June 2021.

Complaint handling

  1. We have seen no evidence that the landlord kept the resident updated about any of the discussions it was having with its contractor between 13 September 2021 and 30 November 2021, despite the resident raising his stage 1 complaint about the delays on 28 September 2021. In its stage 1 response, the landlord only told the resident that the work was non-priority without providing any other details. This meant that the resident felt the need to contact the landlord for updates in the absence of regular communication.
  2. The resident told the landlord in his stage 2 escalation request that it had not made the area safe when it had attended on 5 June 2021. However, the landlord did not acknowledge this in its response. Instead, the landlord repeated that it had not prioritised the work because there was no health and safety risk.
  3. In its stage 2 response, the landlord failed to acknowledge or respond to the resident’s claim that it had not made any notes of the discussion he had with it about the matter on 9 August 2022.
  4. These examples demonstrate a lack of care and attention from the landlord in its handling of the resident’s complaint at stages 1 and 2. This is contrary to sections 4.7 and 5.6 of the Housing Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code), which respectively state that the landlord must “consider all information and evidence carefully” and “address all points raised in the complaint”.
  5. Despite recognising in its stage 1 response that it had failed to communicate with the resident or raise a second emergency appointment to make the area safe as required, the landlord did not offer any resolution to address these issues. In failing to offer a suitable resolution, the landlord did not meet section 6.1 of the Code, which states “where something has gone wrong the landlord must acknowledge this and set out the actions it has already taken, or intends to take, to put things right”.
  6. Section 5.1 of the Code states landlords must respond to stage 1 complaints within 10 working days of the complaint being logged. Exceptionally, landlords can extend this by up to a further 10 days if they provide an explanation to the resident of the need of any delay and a clear timeframe.
  7. Regarding stage 2 complaints, section 5.13 of the Code states landlords must respond within 20 working days of the escalation request. Landlords can extend this by up to 10 working days with agreement of the resident.
  8. The timescales for stage 1 and stage 2 complaint responses required under the Code are the same as those included in section 4.2 of the landlord’s customer complaint policy.
  9. In this case, the landlord took 45 working days to issue its stage 1 response and 27 working days to issue its stage 2 response. The landlord did not discuss extensions to either response at any time with the resident. These response times are a significant failure from the landlord under its complaint handling obligations set out in the Code and its own procedure, and highlight a lack of attention to the resident’s complaint as well as his repair request.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there has been maladministration in respect of the landlord’s handling of the resident’s:
    1. Reports of damage to the perimeter wall.
    2. Complaint.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

  1. It is hereby ordered that, within 4 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord provides the resident with a payment of £300. This comprises:
    1. £150 for the inconvenience caused by the failures and timescales involved in the landlord’s repair handling.
    2. £150 for the inconvenience caused by the failures and timescales involved in the landlord’s complaint handling.
  2. It is ordered that, within 4 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord provides the resident with an apology written by a senior member of staff.

Recommendations

  1. It is recommended that the landlord reviews its policies and practices for communication with contractors and residents regarding repair updates to ensure these are robust.