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

Cambridge City Council (202223994)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202223994

Cambridge City Council

19 February 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 repairs to the communal door.
  2. The Ombudsman has also reviewed the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

  1. The resident is a leaseholder of the property, which is a first floor flat that shares a communal security door with 5 other flats. The landlord, a local authority, is the freeholder.
  2. The landlord’s repair log shows a repair to the door was raised on 2 February 2022. The landlord attended on 1 March 2022 and noted that there was a split on the hanging side of the door. The landlord ordered a follow-up visit to see if a large sash clamp could be used to repair the door or if the door would need to be replaced.
  3. The landlord attended again on 31 March 2022 and said the “door has been badly repaired. It is twisted and very ill fitting. I think it needs a new door and possibly frame”. The landlord referred the issue to its surveyor to decide if a new door was needed.
  4. The landlord’s records show the surveyor attended on 10 June 2022 and took photographs of the door. The surveyor noted that the door slider was broken and needed to be replaced. The landlord attended again on 13 June 2022 and noted that it had “adjusted” the door slider to complete the repair.
  5. The landlord wrote an email to the resident on 28 June 2022 about the reports he had been making about the door. It said:
    1. It had repaired the door and its surveyor had confirmed it was not faulty.
    2. While it appreciated “the door may be getting to the end of life”, it was not “in a condition that warrant[ed] replacement…and the door is functioning correctly”.
    3. It would charge the full cost of the callout to him (minimum cost £50) if he reported any further repairs to the door.
    4. He could raise a complaint about the condition of the door if he wished using its complaints procedure. The landlord provided a link to this in its email.
  6. The resident raised an online complaint to the landlord on 30 June 2022, in which he said:
    1. The communal door was in a state of disrepair and needed urgent attention but the landlord had chosen to “threaten” him with fees if he raised this.
    2. The door had begun to show signs of wear and neglect in autumn 2021 and he had reported at the time that it was not closing or locking correctly, but the landlord took no action to repair this.
    3. As the door was not fixed, it often remained open or ajar and this caused the door to be severely damaged during storms in January 2022. The frame, door hinges and hydraulic closing mechanism were all affected.
    4. The caretaking staff of the building had raised concerns to the landlord on many occasions but these had not been addressed.
    5. The council’s claim in its email of 28 June 2022 that the door was functioning correctly was “demonstrably untrue” and that “each morning the caretaker reattaches the closing arm to try and keep the door operating but it quickly separates from the hydraulic mechanism and the door either hangs wide open or sits close to the magnets emitting a loud hum due to the vibration”.
    6. He was very unhappy that the landlord had “chosen” to ignore and not resolve the problem and to then “threaten” him with costs. He wanted the landlord to investigate this and the conduct of the employee who had sent the email on 28 June 2022.
  7. The landlord acknowledged the resident’s complaint on 5 July 2022 and said it would respond by 14 July 2022. It also asked the resident to provide photographs of the door, which he did.
  8. The landlord sent the stage 1 response on 14 July 2022. It said:
    1. It had raised a job for 25 July 2022 to fix the door closer.
    2. It had discussed the door with a senior surveyor who had previously inspected it and recommended it for replacement. It had therefore sent the details of the door to its planning team to consider it for replacement.
    3. If the planning team decided to replace the door, it would be unlikely to complete this quickly because the priorities had already been decided for the financial year up to March 2023. It would update him once it received the decision about the replacement.
    4. It would continue to repair the door until the door was replaced and he should report any problems as usual.
    5. It trusted its response had addressed his complaint but he could escalate it to stage 2 of its process if he remained dissatisfied.
  9. The resident sent a stage 2 escalation request by email on 14 July 2022. He said:
    1. He was pleased that the landlord was considering a replacement of the door but was disappointed with the timescale.
    2. The door was so defective it required daily repairs and was a security concern because it would not lock correctly. He said there had been multiple occasions where rough sleepers and others had gained access to the building, which had caused problems.
    3. He had wanted the email he was sent on 28 June 2022 to be investigated but the landlord had not responded to this part of the complaint.
    4. He asked why the landlord had not dealt with the problem when first reported in autumn 2021 and who was holding it to account for its conduct and quality of repair work.
    5. He also raised other issues around the building’s estate, including garden maintenance and waste collection. These issues were not included in the resident’s stage 1 complaint.
  10. The landlord emailed the resident on 14 July 2022 and said it had raised an emergency job because it did not realise the door was not locking. The resident confirmed by email on 15 July 2022 that contractors had attended and completed repairs to the door. He said, in the 24 hours following this, the door was locking around half the time. The resident said the contractors had agreed with him that the door needed a replacement, and they were going to recommend this to the landlord.
  11. The landlord sent its stage 2 response on 21 July 2022, in which it said:
    1. It had reviewed the repair log from 14 July 2022. The engineer had advised they had left the door in a functional state but that the door needed to be replaced as there would be repeat issues.
    2. The door was not due for replacement because it was too ‘young’ under the guidance of the Decent Homes Standard, which is why the landlord had always attempted repairs previously. However, following its engineer’s recommendation, it had added the door replacement to its programme of works.
    3. It was satisfied it had followed the appropriate course of action by attempting repairs previously before resorting to a replacement.
    4. It had been acting on the information it had available when it emailed him on 28 June 2022. The door had been inspected 4 times within a month and it had been found to be working, so it was correct to tell him that any further callouts would incur a charge.
    5. Its repairs operations manager would contact him to arrange a site visit so they could discuss the examples of the poor grounds maintenance he had raised in his stage 2 request.
    6. It had reached the end of its complaints procedure and he could bring the matter to this Service if he was still dissatisfied.
  12. The landlord wrote to the resident on 8 November 2022 confirming it planned to replace the door in March 2023. The landlord included a section 20 notice under the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985. This confirmed that the resident, as a leaseholder, would be responsible for estimated charges of £473.01 for the door replacement.
  13. The resident expressed dissatisfaction again with the landlord on 22 December 2022, claiming that the door would have been an inexpensive task to repair had the landlord completed the repair job correctly and promptly when this was first reported.
  14. The resident duly made his complaint to this Service on 6 April 2023.
  15. During a discussion with this Service on 9 February 2024, the resident said the landlord had replaced the door in November 2023. He said the new door had not been fitted correctly by the subcontractor. It had no closing arm connected and needed to be forced shut in order for the lock to catch. He said this often resulted in the door being left ajar by delivery drivers and other non-residents. The resident confirmed the landlord had sent quality inspectors to check the door in January 2024 and they had said they would fix the issue.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

  1. Under paragraph 42 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the Ombudsman may not consider complaints which concern the level of a service charge or the amount of a service charge increase.
  2. Accordingly, this report will not review the amount of the service charge the resident was billed for the door replacement. However, it will investigate the circumstances leading up to the door replacement, including the landlord’s response to the resident’s repair requests.

Door repairs

  1. The landlord does not have a formal repairs policy but the repairs section on its website asks residents to provide details of required repairs to it to help it assess the seriousness of repairs. It provides 3 categories of repairs:
    1. Emergency repairs, which it completes within 24 hours.
    2. Urgent repairs, which it completes within 3 working days.
    3. Routine repairs, which it completes within 20 working days.
  2. The website confirms that, in some cases, the landlord may need to complete a further visit to finish the work after its initial visit. It says that “extra work following a repair visit or inspection can take 8 to 12 weeks if we need to order parts or materials”.
  3. When the report was raised on 2 February 2022, the landlord attended 20 working days later on 1 March 2022. This was within its routine repairs timeframe. The landlord did not complete the work on this date, but ordered a follow-up appointment with additional equipment (a large sash clamp). The next time the landlord attended was on 31 March 2022, which was 22 working days after its visit on 1 March 2022. This was within the 8 to 12 weeks allowed for follow-up appointments under the landlord’s timescale. The notes show the engineer completed repair work on this date but referred the matter to a surveyor to decide whether a better long-term solution was a door replacement.
  4. The surveyor attended on 10 June 2022 and his report recommended that only the door slider should be replaced. The surveyor did not recommend a replacement of the door, which supports the landlord’s decision to attempt repairs before agreeing to a replacement. For this reason, the landlord was correct to say in its email of 28 June 2022 that the door was not in a condition that warranted replacement.
  5. However, the landlord’s suggestion in this email that it would charge the resident for any further callouts about the door was inappropriate. It is evident from the repair log and surveyor’s report that each of the landlord’s staff who visited agreed there was a repair needed to the door, and the two engineers who visited in March 2022 felt the door was in such a state of disrepair that it may have needed a full replacement. The resident was being responsible by reporting the problems with the door to the landlord, and the landlord should not have suggested it might charge him for this.
  6. The resident told us that the landlord attended during 2021 to complete repairs to the door. This is supported by the repair notes the landlord made on 1 March 2022, when it wrote that the door “has had repair [sic] before”. We have requested repair log notes from the landlord from 2021 during our investigation, but it has not responded to this request.
  7. The resident has said that the landlord did not complete the repair properly in 2021, which left the door vulnerable to a storm in January 2022. He said in his stage 1 response that he had reported that the door had not been closing or locking correctly prior to the storm, but the landlord had not responded to this report. The resident said the door was in a worse condition after the storm and, had it been fixed properly before then, the cost of the replacement could have been avoided.
  8. We have not seen evidence from the resident that he reported concerns about the door in 2021, or that he complained at the time about not receiving a response from the landlord about any reports he had made.
  9. However, the Ombudsman notes the landlord did not investigate or respond to the claim from the resident in his stage 1 complaint that it had ignored his repair request in 2021. The landlord has also not responded to the request we have made for the repair logs from 2021. Considering this, it is likely that the landlord did not respond appropriately to the resident’s concern about the door in 2021.
  10. The Ombudsman finds that the landlord dealt with some of the reports of disrepair to the door reasonably. On the occasions included in the available repair logs, the landlord attended within the correct timeframes and sought advice from its surveyor about a potential replacement. When another engineer on 14 July 2022 recommended that the door should be replaced, it added this to its planned works and subsequently completed this. However, the omission of the repair logs from 2021 and its failure to investigate this period during its complaint review leads us to conclude the landlord likely did not respond to all of the disrepair correctly. We also find it was inappropriate for the landlord to suggest the resident was being unreasonable for reporting repairs and to threaten to charge him for callouts. For this reason, the Ombudsman finds maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the repairs.

Complaint handling

  1. Section 5.6 of the Housing Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code) says landlord must address all points raised in the complaint and provide clear reasons for any decisions.
  2. As stated in paragraph 28 of this report, the landlord did not respond to the resident’s claim in his stage 1 complaint that it had ignored his repair request in 2021.
  3. The landlord also did not respond to the resident’s concerns about its email sent to him on 28 June 2022, in which it said he would need to pay callout charges for any further repairs he raised about the door. The landlord only addressed this in its stage 2 response after the resident raised it again in his escalation request.
  4. In not responding to these parts of the complaint, the landlord did not follow section 5.6 of the Code.
  5. When it addressed the matter of its 28 June 2022 email in its stage 2 response, the landlord said it had been correct to warn him of a potential charge if there were further callouts. Its reasoning for this was that the door had been inspected 4 times and had been found to be working. This was untrue for the reasons given in paragraph 24 of this report. It is unclear why the landlord reached this conclusion in its stage 2 response when, had it checked the repair logs, it would have seen that the resident had been justified in raising the reports. This suggests there was a lack of care and attention from the landlord in its investigation of this part of the complaint.
  6. The Ombudsman finds that the landlord responded to the resident’s complaint in the correct timescales under its complaints procedure and the Code. The landlord responded to most of the issues the resident had raised. However, it failed to respond to 2 key points the resident had raised in its stage 1 response. When it later addressed 1 of these points in its stage 2 response, its response was unreasonable. For these reasons, the Ombudsman finds maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there has been maladministration in the landlord’s handling of:
    1. Repairs to the communal door.
    2. The resident’s complaint.

Orders

  1. It is ordered that, within 6 weeks, the landlord completes the required repair to the new communal door so it can close and lock correctly.
  2. It is ordered that the landlord provides the resident with an apology written by a senior member of staff.
  3. It is ordered that the landlord provides the resident with a payment of £300. This comprises:
    1. £200 for the failings identified in its handling of the resident’s reports of required repairs.
    2. £100 for the complaint handling failures identified.