Harlow District Council (202300425)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202300425

Harlow District Council

22 August 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

The complaint is about the landlords handling of:
1. Repairs to the front porch.
2. The associated complaint.

Background and summary of events

Background

The resident’s tenancy started in March 2018. The property is a 3- bedroom house. The landlord is a local authority.
The resident lives with her husband and 4 children.

Summary of events

The landlord set up a limited company to deliver its repairs and maintenance service. For the purpose of this report, this company will be referred to as the landlord’s repair team. This complaint has been responded to by the company acting on the landlord’s behalf.
The resident contacted the landlord on 18 August 2020 and reported that large cracks had formed in the porch. She said when it rained it was causing the porch to leak. The landlord’s records state that it contacted its surveyors to arrange an inspection.
The landlord’s repair team attended the resident’s property on 10 September 2020. The landlord’s records do not include what happened during its attendance.
On 20 August 2021 the landlord attended the resident’s property. The records state it repointed the lead flashing in the porch but the canopy of the porch had deteriorated. The notes go on to state the deterioration was allowing the concrete to be damaged causing water penetration.
On 24 January 2022 its repair team raised a repair for the resident’s porch. The notes stated that the porch needed felting like next doors to stop water coming in. The records are unclear as to what, if any, action was taken.
On 4 February 2022 the resident contacted the landlord and reported that large cracks had formed in the porch. The resident said she was still waiting for repairs and had not been provided with a timescale. The resident was concerned about her family’s health and safety as the porch was crumbling. Also, the metal bars were exposed due to the bars corroding and making the concrete not secure. The resident requested a call back.
The landlord’s internal records show it contacted its repair team for an update 4 times between 8 February 2022 and 8 March 2022.
A roof contractor emailed the landlord’s repair team on 19 May 2022 following an inspection of the porch. The inspection found that:
1. A new timber frame would need to be built to replace the existing frame due to concrete crumbling.
2. Once replaced, it required felting.
3. Overall, the porch needed replacing not repairing.

On 23 June 2022 the landlord’s repair team contacted the landlord and requested it review the resident’s porch as its inspection found it was beyond repair.
The resident initially complained to the landlord on 6 October 2022. The resident said previously enquiries regarding repairs to the porch had not been resolved. The resident reported that the issues with the porch had worsened. The resident attached pictures dated 4 October 2022 showing the damage.
The landlord’s repair team sent a stage 1 acknowledgement on 7 October 2022. It advised it aimed to issue its stage 1 response by 20 October 2022.
The same day, an internal email between the landlord’s repair team and its complaints team stated that it found the porch was beyond repair.
The landlord’s internal records state it sent a letter to the resident dated 18 October 2022 extending its timeframe in issuing its stage 1 complaint response.
On 31 October 2022 the resident contacted the landlord for update on the complaint. The resident said she was unhappy that she had only just received its letter dated 18 October 2022. The resident said she found the delay unacceptable.
On 1 November 2022, the landlord’s internal records stated repair works had been raised on 24 January 2022 and was awaiting its contractors. The landlord noted that it needed to be allocated with urgency.

The landlord’s repair team issued its stage 1 complaint response on 1 November 2022. The repair team:
1. Confirmed the resident reported cracks to the porch roof on 18 August 2020 and 4 February 2022.
2. Raised a repair on 24 January 2022 and completed an inspection of the porch. The inspection found that the repair required specialist equipment. Therefore, it confirmed it had been liaising with the landlord to decide how to move forward.
3. Contacted the resident on 1 November 2022 to discuss the complaint and said it needed to liaise with the landlord.
4. Apologised for the delay in providing its stage 1 response. It explained that it was dealing with a high volume of enquiries and in some cases, it had taken longer to respond.
5. It upheld the complaint due to the timescale taken to progress outstanding works. The landlord apologised for the delay the resident had experienced for works to be completed.

The landlord’s repair team contacted the resident on 2 November 2022 and preliminary booked for a joint inspection to take place on 10 November 2022.

The resident requested that the landlord progress the complaint to stage 2 on 21 November 2022. The resident said she remained unhappy as the landlord had failed to resolve the issue with the porch. As such, the resident reported that the disrepair had worsened. The resident attached pictures to show the damage to the porch.
The landlord’s repair team issued a stage 2 acknowledgement the same day. It advised it aimed to provide a response by 12 December 2022.
The landlord’s repair team issued its stage 2 complaint response on 21 December 2022. The repair team:
1. Confirmed the resident reported cracks to the porch roof on 18 August 2020 and 4 February 2022.
2. Raised a repair on 24 January 2022 and completed an inspection of the porch. The inspection found that the repair required specialist equipment. Therefore, it confirmed it was liaising with the landlord to decide how to move forward.
3. Apologised that the initial inspection was cancelled due to its operative having COVID-19. Also, that the resident had taken time off work for the appointment. It explained that the inspection was an external inspection, therefore, the resident did not need to be present. It also apologised for any misunderstanding or lack of communication regarding the process.
4. Confirmed it was in the process of booking a joint appointment with the landlord to complete an inspection. It apologised that until this inspection takes place it cannot determine whether the porch can be replaced or repaired.
5. In conclusion to the complaint, it found it had followed correct process. However, the process had taken longer than it would have liked. Therefore, it upheld the complaint due to the timeframe to carry out a joint inspection.

The same day the landlord’s repair team internal records show it contacted the landlord to confirm it found the porch beyond repair. The landlord’s repair team said it was hoping to come to an agreeable solution to resolve the problem.

Post complaint process

The landlord’s repair team contacted the resident on 22 December 2022 and left a message for a call back. The landlord’s repair team provisionally made an appointment for 11 January 2023 to complete a joint inspection.
On 29 August 2023 the landlord’s repair team requested scaffolding and noted there was a risk of asbestos. Further, that the resident’s porch needed felting to stop water penetration.

Assessment and findings

The Ombudsman’s Dispute resolution principles are to be fair, put things right and learn from outcomes. This Service will apply these principles when considering whether any redress is appropriate and proportionate for any maladministration or service failure identified.
The Ombudsman’s role is to consider whether the landlord responded appropriately to the resident’s concerns by adhering to relevant legislation, its policies and procedures, and any agreements with the resident, and that the landlord acted reasonably, taking account of what is fair in all the circumstances of the case.

Scope of investigation

Although it is noted that there is history of porch repair reports by the resident, this investigation has primarily focussed on the landlord’s handling of the resident’s recent reports from January 2022 onwards that were considered during the landlord’s recent complaint responses. This is because residents are expected to raise complaints with their landlords in a timely manner so that the landlord has a reasonable opportunity to consider the issues whilst they are still ‘live’, and while the evidence is available to reach an informed conclusion on the events that occurred.
The resident informed the Ombudsman the landlord’s handling of the matters under review in this investigation had a negative impact on her health and wellbeing. Whilst this service is an alternative to the courts, it is unable to establish legal liability or whether a landlord’s actions or lack of action have had a detrimental impact on a resident’s health. Nor can it calculate or award damages. The Ombudsman is therefore unable to consider the personal injury aspects of the resident’s complaint. These matters are likely better suited to consideration by a court or via a personal injury claim.

Repairs to the front porch

The tenancy agreement required the landlord to keep in repair the structure and exterior of the property in repair. This mirrored its repair obligations of section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985, that a repair must be completed within a reasonable period of time.
The landlord’s repair policy sets out target times for repairs. This states external minor structural repairs to be completed as planned works taking 90 days.
The records provided to this Service by the landlord point to failures in effective record keeping practices. As part of this investigation, the landlord was requested to provide relevant information that would reasonably be recorded and retained by the landlord. The documentation provided was limited and the repair logs provided did not track its actions or future plans.
In this case, the repair records provided to this Service by the landlord indicate that it attended the resident’s property in January 2022. At this time, the records do not state what, if any, action had been taken by the landlord. A month later, the resident reported that the porch had deteriorated and was causing a health and safety issue.
Despite the resident raising additional safety concerns there is no evidence that the landlord acted on the resident’s concerns to establish whether the porch was hazardous. Following the resident’s report of the hazard it took the landlord 3 months to complete an inspection of the porch. The records show that in May 2022 the inspection concluded that the porch needed replacing as it was beyond repair. Due to the resident’s long standing reports, it would have been reasonable for the landlord to have completed an inspection at its earliest opportunity. As this was not the case, the landlord missed opportunities to investigate and assure the resident it was taking her concerns seriously.
It is clear from the records that the landlord found that the porch needed replacing in May 2022. This Service recognises that the landlord’s repair team required authorisation a replacement porch and prior to this taking place a joint inspection was required involving specialist equipment.
At this time, it would have been reasonable for it to be proactive in arranging the joint inspection before the porch was replaced. However, whilst there is some reference to the landlord’s repair team contacting the relevant teams, its engagement to arrange a joint inspection was minimal. The records show it only attempted to progress this once between June 2022 and December 2022. This was not reasonable as it should have full oversight of the matter, contacting relevant teams on a regular basis to seek a resolution.

There is also no evidence that the landlord kept the resident up to date which is a cause of concern to both this Service and the resident. Contact with the resident should have been clearly recorded and accessible. As such, the landlord lacked oversight to the issues the resident faced particularly, as the resident raised health and safety concerns with children living in the property.
The evidence provided by the landlord showed that the resident’s porch had not been replaced or repaired by the end of the complaint process. This is not in line with its own repair policies to complete planned repairs within 90 days. Throughout the resident’s raising concerns about the porch the landlord failed to provide a timeline of when repairs or replacement action would take place. Additionally, the landlord did not keep the resident updated on its progress. The lack of prioritisation and communication by the landlord particularly, given the resident’s perceived reports of health and safety risks presenting at the property was not in line with its repair obligations. The landlord acknowledged some of its failings in its complaint response. However, the landlord failed to take into account the impact this was having on the resident and her family. Whilst it apologised in its complaint responses, it did not take appropriate steps to address these and put things right. As such, the repairs or replacement porch had not progressed much further since it issued its stage 2 complaint response.
This Service finds maladministration. The landlord is ordered to apologise to the resident and pay compensation to reflect the distress caused by its failings. It is also required to take steps to seek to learn from the issues identified.

Complaint handling

The Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (‘the Code’) was introduced with the aim of improving complaint handling across the housing sector. As a member of the Scheme, the landlord is obliged to establish and maintain a complaints procedure in accordance with any good practice recommended by the Ombudsman.
In accordance with its complaint’s procedure, the landlord’s response to residents’ complaints at stage 1 is required within 10 working days of the complaint and the stage 2 response in 15 working days. Where these timescales are not possible, this will be communicated to the resident.
Although, the landlord acknowledged the resident’s stage 1 and 2 complaints in line with the code, it failed to follow its own policy timescales when responding to both stages of the resident’s complaint. It took 17 working days to respond at stage 1 and 22 working days to respond at stage 2. These response time exceeded the timescales stated in the landlord’s complaint policy and the Code.
The evidence provided by the landlord regarding its delay in issuing its stage 1 response was unclear. The only record of this relates to when the resident contacted the landlord to express dissatisfaction at receiving its letter confirming an extension in issuing its stage 1 response, 10 days after it had been sent. Whilst the landlord followed its process in advising that it needed at extension at stage one, there is no evidence that the landlord provided an explanation for its delay. Overall, the lack of communication would have caused the resident avoidable uncertainty and this was not reasonable.
There is no evidence that the landlord contacted the resident to advise of an extension at stage 2. This is not in line with its complaints policy to inform residents if there is a delay in issuing its complaint response.
The complaint responses lacked detail and its stage 2 response was for the most a repeat of its stage 1 response. In the Ombudsman’s opinion, this is not best practice, as the landlord failed to acknowledge the resident’s ongoing concerns and the worsening condition of the porch. This adversely affected the resident and exacerbated the situation further.

Overall, whilst the landlord apologised for its complaint handling delays at stage 1 it did not provide an apology in its stage 2 for its further it delays. Further to this, it did not provide an appropriate remedy to reflect the extent of its failings. This is not in line with the Code that states that landlords should put things right when something goes wrong.
A finding of maladministration has been made in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint and an order for compensation is made in that regard.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s:
1. Reports of repairs to the porch.
2. The associated complaint.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

The landlord is ordered to do the following within 4 weeks of the date of this report:
1. A senior manager to apologise to the resident for its handling of the repairs to the porch and its complaint handling delays.
2. Pay the resident £750 compensation comprised of:
  1. £600 to reflects distress and inconvenience caused to the resident and time and trouble in its handling of the resident’s reports of repairs to the porch. Additionally, to reflect the inconvenience resulting from the landlord’s poor record keeping.
  2. £150 to reflect its failings in the handling of the resident’s associated complaint.
3. Arrange for an inspection of the porch to take place with the next 4 weeks, at a time mutually agreed with the resident to assess what, if any, further works are required. If works are recommended, a schedule of works with timescales for completion should be agreed with the resident. The resident is to be kept updated of progress by being given a single point of contact, with an agreed frequency of contact for updates to be provided.
Provide the Ombudsman with evidence of compliance with the above orders

Recommendations

It is recommended that the landlord:

Assess its internal recording procedures surrounding repairs against the recommendations of this Service’s Spotlight report on Knowledge and Information Management.