Brentwood Borough Council (202122844)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202122844

Brentwood Borough Council

11 July 2022

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 concerns the landlord’s contractor renewing a section of the property’s concrete path in error.

Background

2. The resident is a secure tenant of the landlord, which is a local authority. The property is a ground floor flat.
3. Between March 2021 and October 2021, the landlord raised several work orders to conduct repairs to the concrete canopy over the property’s front door.
4. Following an appointment on 19 October 2021, the resident called the contractor to inform it that she was dissatisfied with the quality of the finished work. In an email to the landlord, the contractor explained that in response to the resident’s call it had arranged a further appointment for 25 October 2021. However, the operative who attended misunderstood the job instructions. Rather than repainting the canopy and doorframe, the operative mistakenly renewed a section of the concrete path outside of the front door.
5. The resident contacted the landlord on 28 November 2021 and requested to raise a complaint. She explained her dissatisfaction with how the repairs to the canopy had been undertaken and that a section of the path was renewed incorrectly. She also informed the landlord that she had fallen on the new section of path.
6. As a resolution to the complaint, the resident requested that the outstanding canopy repairs were completed, the path put right, and that the landlord award compensation for: the stress and inconvenience the matter had caused, the time she had taken off work, and for the fall she suffered as a result of the new section of path.
7. The landlord sent a stage one complaint response on 9 December 2021. The landlord first provided a timeline of repairs to the canopy. It then apologised for the error by the operative and the inconvenience this caused. The landlord also addressed the resident’s request for compensation for taking time off work, declined this request and explained that a tenant would be expected to be available to provide access to operatives during an agreed appointment time.
8. Following an escalation request by the resident, a stage two response was sent on 29 December 2021. The landlord informed the resident that:
   1. It accepted that there had been poor communication and rescheduled appointments since the job to repair the canopy was first raised in March 2021. The landlord apologised and explained that it had made changes in its booking and job management process.
   2. It had reviewed the notes on its system for the appointments and these showed that the resident had been advised that as the work to the canopy was external, she would not need to be present. The landlord therefore upheld its decision not to award compensation for the resident taking time off work.
   3. It would not progress the resident’s request for compensation for falling on the new section of path through its complaint process as it was an insurance matter. The landlord gave the resident the information she would need to make a claim against its liability insurer.
   4. It recognised the inconvenience and disruption the matter had caused the resident and her family. It apologised and offered £50 compensation.
9. In an email to this Service on 18 January 2022, the resident described the outstanding issues of the complaint as that the path had yet to be made good by the landlord despite several visits by the contractor, and that the level of compensation it had offered was inadequate.
10. As a resolution to the complaint, the resident requested that the work to the path was completed and that she received suitable compensation in recognition of the distress and inconvenience the matter had caused, as well as for the fall caused by the new path.

Assessment and findings

Relevant policies and procedures

11. The landlord’s housing handbook explains that it prioritises its repairs into four categories. Code 1 repairs are emergency repairs and are attended to within 24 hours. Code 2 and Code 3 repairs are urgent repairs and are attended to within three working days or 14 working days respectively, Code 4 repairs are routine repairs and are attended to within six weeks. An emergency repair is described by the landlord as a repair that presents a “danger to life or where there is a serious risk of considerable damage to the property”.
12. The handbook goes on to gives examples of what type of work is awarded what priority. For a path giving access to a front or rear door, the landlord states it will be categorised as Code 2 or Code 3. However, the landlord’s website at the time of the complaint advised its residents that as a result of the Covid-19 pandemic, it was experiencing manufacturing and distribution delays. The website advised its residents that grounds work (including concrete work) would take four to six weeks for the material to be available to book an appointment.
13. The landlord operates a two-stage complaints process. When a complaint is received, the landlord aims to acknowledge the complaint within five working days and provide a response at stage one within ten working days. If the complainant is dissatisfied with the response, they can request an escalation of the complaint to the next stage. The landlord will then undertake a review of the complaint and provide a stage two response within 15 working days. This will be the landlord’s final response to the complaint.
14. The complaints policy also describes the circumstances where the landlord will not consider an issue in its complaints process. This includes “matters which are subject to an insurance claim”.
15. In regard to compensation, the complaints policy states that the landlord will consider offering a complainant financial redress “where the complaint investigation has identified maladministration (a mistake or delay that has caused a customer to suffer injustice) and the [landlord], or those working on behalf of the [landlord] are wholly or partially at fault”.

Scope of investigation

16. Following the renewal work to the path, a garden gate was placed over the drying concrete by an operative to protect it. The resident slipped on this gate and sustained an injury. The resident has requested compensation from the landlord for the fall and the time she had to take off work. From the correspondence provided by the landlord, this Service understands that the resident has made a claim with the landlord’s liability insurer relating to this incident.
17. The Ombudsman is not able to determine matters of liability or causation and will not consider complaints which would be more reasonably dealt with via another organisation or procedure. This is in line with paragraph 39(i) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, which states that “The Ombudsman will not investigate complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion concern matters where the Ombudsman considers it quicker, fairer, more reasonable, or more effective to seek a remedy through the courts, a designated person, other tribunal or procedure”. Nonetheless, consideration has been given to the general distress and inconvenience which the situation may have caused the resident and how the landlord responded.

The renewal of the section of path

18. It is not disputed by either party that following the resident informing the contractor of her dissatisfaction with the quality of the finished repair to the canopy, an operative mistakenly renewed a section of the concrete path instead of repainting the canopy and doorframe.
19. In its complaint responses, the landlord acknowledged that the resident had received poor communication during the canopy repairs and that a section of the path had been renewed in error. The landlord apologised, offered £50 compensation and agreed to return the path to its previous state.
20. Where there are admitted failings by a landlord, the Ombudsman’s role is to consider whether the redress offered by the landlord put things right and resolved the resident’s complaint satisfactorily in the circumstances. In considering this the Ombudsman takes into account whether the landlord’s offer of redress was in line with the Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles: be fair, put things right and learn from outcomes.
21. The landlord acted fairly in acknowledging its mistakes and explaining what it did wrong. It looked to put things right by apologising to the resident, awarding appropriate compensation, and arranging for the path to be put back to its previous condition. It looked to learn from its errors by making changes to how it books and manages appointments for its contractors to avoid its tenants having a similar experience as the resident when making appointments for repairs in the future.
22. The landlord acted appropriately in apologising to the resident and informing her of the lessons it had learned from her complaint. It clearly recognised and accepted that its service had been poor, and the actions it took to remedy that were, with one exception, reasonable and appropriate. The exception being the level of compensation it offered to the resident. This was relatively low taking into account the length of the inconvenience caused to the resident by the incorrect work being carried out to the path and the poor communication she received from the contractor, which resulted in her raising a complaint with the landlord.
23. Therefore, there has been service failure by the landlord and additional financial redress is warranted in order to fully resolve the complaint.
24. The Ombudsman’s own remedies guidance (which is available on our website) suggests a payment of £50 to £250. Remedies in the range of these amounts may be used for instances of service failure resulting in some impact on the complainant. We recognise that there has been service failure which had an impact on the complainant but was of short duration and may not have significantly affected the overall outcome for the complainant.
25. Therefore, it would be appropriate for the landlord to pay the resident an additional £50 compensation in recognition of the distress and inconvenience that this matter has caused, bringing the total compensation award to £100. As previously stated, it is not within the remit of this Service to consider liability for the fall the resident suffered and therefore this has not been taken into account when considering the reasonableness of the compensation offer.
26. The resident has also stated her dissatisfaction that the work to the path remained outstanding. The landlord’s repair logs and correspondence states that the contractor attended the property on 23 December 2021 to dig up and relay three sections of the path that had been mistakenly renewed, but that the work was put on hold due to bad weather.
27. The repair logs go on to state that appointments were arranged for 2 and 3 March 2022 for the work to go ahead, but were again put on hold due to the weather. An email from the contractor to the landlord stated that “both the concrete works and the door frame painting will be put on hold so weather can improve and to make sure everything is done correctly and to a good standard to avoid any issues in the future”.
28. A new appointment was arranged for 15 April 2022 but did not go ahead. The contractor informed the landlord that the resident had refused to allow the work on her path to go ahead unless work to the communal pathway was undertaken at the same time.
29. Issues with the communal pathway were not raised by the resident in her original complaint, nor in her escalation request. It was reasonable for the landlord to raise work orders just for the outstanding work from the complaint to be completed and its repairs team to handle any other work reported by the resident in line with its repair policy described above.
30. Moreover, before a matter can be considered by this Service, the landlord needs to be provided with the opportunity to investigate and respond. The resident will need to contact the landlord and, if appropriate, raise a separate complaint regarding the communal pathway. This is in line with paragraph 39(a) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, which states that the Ombudsman can only consider complaints that have exhausted a member’s complaint procedure.
31. In regard to the delay in completing work to the resident’s path, it was reasonable for the landlord to rely on the advice and opinion of its appropriately qualified contractors as to when the weather would be suitable for the work to go ahead. Following the end of the winter months, the contractor did agree that it would be in a position to complete the work.
32. It should also be noted that as the work to the section of path was cosmetic, to return it to the type of concrete used on the rest of the path, this would not be considered an urgent repair by the landlord. Once the contractor had informed it that it would be able to start the work, an appointment would be prioritised as Code 4 (routine, attend within six weeks).
33. Therefore, taking into account the weather conditions, the advice it received from its contractor and the categorisation of the repair; it was reasonable for the landlord not to be able to offer an appointment to the resident to complete the work to the path and the doorframe until mid-April 2022.

Determination

34. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure by the landlord in respect of its contractor renewing a section of the property’s concrete path in error. 

Orders

35. For the service failure and reasons set out above, the landlord is ordered to pay to the resident £50. This payment should be made within four weeks of the date of this report. The landlord should update this Service when payment has been made.
36. The compensation award is in addition to the £50 compensation already offered by the landlord during its complaint process. This should also be paid to the resident, if the landlord has not done so already.