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

London Borough of Newham (202216504)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202216504

London Borough of Newham

25 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:
    1. The landlord’s handling of the fence repair.
    2. The resident’s request for a leaseholder online submission tool.
  2. This investigation has also made additional findings relating to the landlord’s:
    1. Complaint handling.
    2. Knowledge and Information Management (KIM).

Background

  1. The resident is a leaseholder of the property, a first floor flat. We have not been provided a copy of the lease agreement but the parties agree that the resident’s flat has direct access to a private garden.
  2. The resident reported the shared fence between his garden and the neighbour’s garden was damaged to the landlord on 16 May 2022. The landlord said it had attended 3 times in late 2021 and did not get access. An appointment was booked for 30 August 2022, however the fence was not repaired. A further appointment was booked for 2 February 2023 and the fence was repaired on 3 February 2023.
  3. The resident made a complaint to the landlord about the issue on 19 September 2022, in which he stated that the appointment had not gone ahead on 30 August 2022. He requested £150 compensation for the inconvenience. In its stage 1 response, dated 10 October 2022, the landlord said the contractor had attended and taken measurements when it attended in August 2022, however access was not available to complete the repair. It apologised for failing to make the resident aware of the visit and for the extended timeframe to complete the repairs. The landlord confirmed an appointment for 02 February 2023 and offered £100 for the delay and inconvenience.
  4. The resident rejected the offer on 10 October 2022 and requested £250 noting the level of stress he had endured. The resident disputed the access attempts made and was unhappy with the new appointment date offered. The landlord increased the offer to £150 in response to this and told the resident this was in line with the “Housing Ombudsman’s guidelines that relate to Delay & Distress”. The resident said he would accept this if the landlord could provide the guidelines it was referring to. The landlord did not respond.
  5. The resident requested assistance from this Service on 10 January 2023 and was referred to complete the landlord’s internal complaints procedure. The case was escalated to stage 2 on 11 January 2023 and the landlord issued its response on 10 February 2023. The landlord detailed the access issues and informed the resident that fencing jobs required 2 visits. Nonetheless, the landlord acknowledged a service failure in handling the issues raised and reoffered £150, made up of £100 for delayed repairs, in line with “Housing Ombudsman guidelines” and £50 for the delayed complaint response.
  6. The resident remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s response and referred the matter to this Service. He requested £1000 compensation, made up of £500 for compromised use of the garden, £250 for stress and worry about his security and £250 for time and effort in trying to resolve the matter.

Jurisdiction

  1. What the Ombudsman can and cannot consider is called the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. This is governed by the Scheme. When a complaint is brought to this service, the Ombudsman must consider all the circumstances of the case, as there are sometimes reasons why a complaint will not be investigated.
  2. After carefully considering all the evidence, in accordance with paragraph 42(a) of the Scheme, the following aspect of the complaint is outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.
  3. When referring the complaint to this Service, the resident has outlined his complaint to include the lack of an online complaint submission tool for leaseholders. Upon commencing the investigation, the resident clarified this refers to leaseholder’s inability to report repairs online. The existing online repairs tool is a service that requires a rent account number and therefore is not accessible to leaseholders.
  4. On 9 May 2022 the resident asked the landlord to consider an online submission tool for repairs. This was logged by the landlord as a service request and the landlord confirmed the resident should report repairs by telephone. The matter is not mentioned again by either party through the duration of the complaint.
  5. Paragraph 1.4 of the Housing Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code) says a “service request is a request from a resident to their landlord requiring action to be taken to put something right”. The landlord acted appropriately in identifying this request as a service request. If the resident remains dissatisfied with the landlord’s response to the request, he can contact the landlord to raise a complaint.
  6. Paragraph 42(a) of the Scheme provides that the Ombudsman may not consider complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion “are made prior to having exhausted a member’s complaints procedure…”. The landlord has not had the opportunity to investigate this part of the complaint, therefore any issues raised by the resident regarding the online submission tools are outside of the jurisdiction of this Service to consider.
  7. A recommendation has therefore been made for the landlord to contact the resident about the service request made in May 2022 and clarify whether he wishes to raise a complaint about its response to the service request.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s handling of the fence repair.

  1. The landlord has not provided a copy of the lease, which would confirm which party is responsible for the repair. In this case, responsibility for the repair was not disputed and the landlord assumed responsibility for the repair of the boundary fence.
  2. The landlord’s repairs policy does not include timescales for repairs to be completed and we have previously made a wider order to the landlord in relation to this. For the purposes of this investigation, a reasonable timescale for non-emergency repairs to be completed is considered 28 days.
  3. The resident reported the fence repair on 16 May 2022 and the landlord booked an appointment for 30 August 2022. The landlord did not respond when the resident expressed dissatisfaction with this timeframe. The landlord’s contractor attended to take measurements on 30 August 2022 but could not complete the repair due to access restraints. The landlord booked a further appointment for 2 February 2023. The landlord’s contractor confirmed to the landlord on 10 October 2022 that this was the earliest available appointment and that the job would be moved forward if they had any cancellations. This appointment was 262 days from the initial report. The landlord’s limited availability of repair appointments unreasonably delayed the completion of these works. It is noted that landlord did not acknowledge this at any stage of the complaint.
  4. When considering reasonable timeframes for repair, we understand that delays happen for a variety of reasons. It is expected that landlords demonstrate regular communication with residents in these scenarios to offer reassurance and identify any mitigations that may assist the resident in the meantime. In this case, this may have included offering a temporary repair to the fence. There is no evidence of proactive communication to the resident throughout the complaint.
  5. It is best practise for a landlord to publish repairs timeframes on their website or through a similar communication channel. In the absence of published repairs timeframes, it would be reasonable for the landlord to confirm directly with a resident the timeframe in which they can expect the repair to be completed. Where reasonable timeframes cannot be achieved, the landlord should discuss this with the resident to ensure the impact of this is minimised and expectations are managed. There is no evidence of the landlord reviewing the impact on the resident at any stage of this repair.
  6. It would also be expected that the landlord confirms the expected number of appointments that will be required and where possible book these appointments in advance, at the resident’s convenience. The landlord advised the resident that 2 visits were needed for fencing repairs for the first time in its stage 2 response. This was after the repair had been completed. This is an example of the landlord failing to manage the resident’s expectations.
  7. The landlord listed the residents phone number on the repair job to assist with access, however there is no evidence of the resident being contacted for access. It would have been appropriate for the landlord to discuss the access arrangements with the resident in advance or ask the contractor to contact the resident if it is discovered that access would not be required through his property. The landlord did not provide an explanation for why they could not complete the repair using the access through the resident’s property. The poor communication and failure to manage the resident’s expectations added to the frustration experienced.
  8. Furthermore, the landlord was unable to confirm how it had been trying to gain access and acknowledged they did not adhere to the resident’s request to be contacted for access. This is a record keeping issue, as highlighted in our spotlight report on Knowledge and Information Management (KIM). Recommendation 19 in the KIM spotlight report states a landlord must set out clear requirements of operatives before they are allowed to record an appointment as missed. It goes on to explain that this should include ensuring that the appointment was notified to the resident, it was made at a time the resident could attend and checking that any contact requests were adhered to (e.g., Two door knocks, calling the resident).
  9. The resident disputed the contractor’s attendance on 30 August 2022 and the landlord has not produced evidence of its attendance, though it said the contractor took measurements. In the very least, this demonstrates the contractor did not gain access via the resident’s requested method. The landlord has failed to address this in its complaint response which is an oversight as it is found that this certainly contributed to the escalation of the complaint. We have found a service failure on this point and £50 compensation has been awarded. An additional service failure has been found in relation to the landlord’s KIM.
  10. In referring the matter to this Service, the resident said the landlord had not appropriately considered the distress and inconvenience caused by the lack of security and the time taken trying to resolve the issue. The area of the fence that was damaged was the boundary fence between the resident’s garden and the neighbouring garden. The resident confirmed there is no external access to either garden.
  11. It is acknowledged that the resident experienced a loss of privacy, however the resident’s security does not appear to have been seriously affected. Where this Service identifies a resident has been adversely affected by the complaint subject, we assess the level of impact experienced by the resident. In this case, the impact was minimal as the repair did not restrict the resident’s use of his entire garden nor did it severely compromise the resident’s security. Had the landlord acted promptly in resolving the issue, there would have been minimal impact to the resident.
  12. The landlord’s compensation policy states suggested payments for delay and distress are in the range of £50 to £150 for low to moderate impacts. The impact in this case is greater than it would have been as a direct result of the length of time it took the landlord to resolve the issue. It is recognised there was no permanent impact on the resident. In its stage 2 response the landlord offered £100 for the delayed repair, however it would have been appropriate for it to have recognised the impact as more moderate to reflect the residents time pursuing the matter and offered £150 in line with its policy.
  13. In any case, it would have been appropriate for the landlord to inspect the issue when it was first reported to accurately assess the impact and confirm the outcome of this inspection to the resident. This would have shown the resident they were taking their concerns seriously. There is no evidence of the landlord clarifying the level of damage to the fence or confirming how the resident was affected. An early confirmation of this would have been useful in managing the resident’s expectations about the timescales for repair.
  14. In conclusion, the landlord failed to acknowledge the lack of availability of repair appointments and did not take steps to understand or mitigate the impact on the resident. This investigation has found maladministration in this matter and awarded £200, made up of £150 for delayed repairs and £50 for poor record keeping around access arrangements.

Complaint handling

  1. The landlord’s complaints policy outlines a 2 stage process, with stage 1 complaints being responded to in 10 working days and stage 2 complaints being responded to in 20 working days. At stage 1 the landlord’s response was delayed by 5 working days and the landlord has not offered any apology for the delay in its response. The stage 2 response, once acknowledged, was provided within 21 working days and included an apology for the delayed response. These are considered minor delays and it is acknowledged there was no major impact on the overall handling of the complaint.
  2. On 10 October 2022, the resident rejected the landlord’s stage 1 response on the basis that the compensation offered was too low. A number of emails were sent back and forth negotiating on an agreeable compensation amount and the landlord did not respond to the resident’s last email on that date. The resident requested assistance from this Service on 10 January 2023 and was referred back to the landlord to exhaust its internal complaints procedure. At this point, the complaint was escalated to stage 2.
  3. The landlord’s complaints policy says complainants may request a stage 2 review if the resident does not agree with the outcome of the stage 1 investigation.
  4. The Code says “If all or part of the complaint is not resolved to the resident’s satisfaction at stage one it must be progressed to stage two of the landlord’s procedure”. It also says “Landlords must only escalate a complaint to stage two […] at the request of the resident” however it would have been appropriate for the landlord to remind the resident of this option if an agreement could not be found on the stage 1 outcome.
  5. The landlord should not have waited for the resident to explicitly request an escalation, especially since the resident had made their position clear and the landlord did not respond to the resident’s last email on the matter. This demonstrates a clear service failure as it delayed the process by 3 months and hindered the resident’s access to this Service.
  6. The Ombudsman recognises that any resident pursuing a complaint with their landlord will incur a certain amount of time and trouble. In its stage 2 response, the landlord has awarded £50 for the delayed complaint responses and while it was reasonable to do so, this is not proportionate to the unreasonable delay in failing to escalate the case. Given this failure, this investigation orders an additional £50 compensation be paid. This is in recognition of the fact the resident had to contact this Service before their complaint was escalated.
  7. The Ombudsman encourages landlords to use complaints as a source of intelligence to identify issues and introduce positive changes in service delivery. The landlord’s final response is lacking in any acknowledgment of its failing to escalate the complaint and continues to place blame on the access issues causing the delay to the repair. The landlord has missed the opportunity to identify failings in its repairs service, specifically the evident failings in booking and management appointments as well as the availability of appointments. The landlord should review its approach to continuous learning and improvement.
  8. In conclusion to the complaint handling issue, whilst the landlord recognised the delays in its complaint responses, it failed to recognise the need to escalate the complaint in a timely manner. This delayed the resolution of the issue and adversely affected the resident’s ability to bring his complaint to this Service. This investigation has found a Service Failure in this regard.

The landlord’s Knowledge and Information Management (KIM)

  1. An additional service failure finding concerning the landlord’s KIM has been found because, as set out above, the landlord has not provided evidence of its contractors’ attendance to the appointment for the fence repair in August 2022. It also has not provided evidence of it giving the resident notice of the appointment.  As a result of the lack of records in relation to its contractors’ attendance, the landlord was also not in a position to provide an explanation to the resident about what its contractors did when they attended to the appointment in question.

Review of policies and practice

  1. The Ombudsman has found maladministration (including severe maladministration) following several investigations into complaints raised with the landlord involving repairs. As a result of these; a wider order has been issued to the landlord under paragraph 54(f) of the Scheme. This is for the landlord to review its policy or practice in relation to the service failures identified, which may give rise to further complaints about the matter.
  2. The landlord has been ordered to, within 12 weeks, introduce a repairs policy and update the information on its website to include its target timeframes for different types of repairs. Some of the issues identified in this case are similar to the previous cases and so the learning from this complaint should be incorporated into the wider review, ordered as part of case 202217014. In addition to this, we have not made any orders or recommendations as part of this case, which would duplicate those already made to landlord as part of the wider order.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the fence repair.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was a service failure in the landlord’s handling of the associated complaint.
  3. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was a service failure in the landlord’s KIM.

Orders

  1. Within 4 weeks, the landlord should:
    1. Provide a written apology to the resident, addressing the identified shortcomings identified in its response.
    2. Pay the resident £300 compensation, inclusive of the £150 it already offered in the stage 2 response, comprising:
      1. £150 for delayed repairs.
      2. £50 for the poor record keeping around access and appointments.
      3. £100 for the delayed complaints escalation.
    3. Confirm to this Service what procedure it has in place for managing missed appointments.

Recommendations

  1. The landlord should contact the resident about the service request made in May 2022 and clarify whether he wishes to raise a complaint about its response to the service request.