Castle Point Borough Council (202017467)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202017467

Castle Point Borough Council

15 September 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 is about the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns regarding:
   1. repainting her bin cupboard storage door;
   2. its programme of planned works, including repainting her property;
   3. its call handler’s behaviour.

Background and summary of events

Background

2. The resident is a secured tenant at the property of the landlord. The resident moved to the property following a mutual exchange in or around February 1977. The landlord has advised it does not hold a copy of the original tenancy agreement.
3. The landlord is a local authority.
4. The landlord operates a two stage complaints policy.
5. The landlord operates a responsive repairs policy. The policy categorises different types of repairs into different categories depending on the urgency. ‘Emergency’ and ‘urgent’ repairs relate to immediate safety, while ‘routine’ repairs should be dealt with within 28 calendar days. The policy also notes that some routine repairs may be deferred if a ‘programme of planned works’ is to be or being arranged which will cover the repairs.

 Summary of events

6. In or prior to October 2020, the resident reported that the bottom of the door to her bin storage cupboard was rotten, had suffered water damage and required repairs and needed repainting.
7. The landlord has provided this service with its internal communications and notes from the period of the complaint. On 19 October 2020, the landlord noted that it had, upon inspection, determined that there was a requirement to renew the tank ball-valve and it was confirmed upon inspection that repairs to the bin cupboard door and frame were classified as routine repairs. It had advised the resident this would be addressed as a routine repair, but that due to COVID-19 restrictions, it  was currently only completing urgent repairs.
8. On 22 February 2021, the resident called the landlord to express her dissatisfaction that the bin door had not been repainted. She noted the bin door was outside, which she did not consider to be a COVID-19 risk. She also queried when the previous repainting of her property had occurred. The landlord advised its records only went back 30 years, and that it had no record of her property being repaired in that time. It is evident from the landlord’s call taker’s notes that the conversation broke down and that the call taker chose to end the call.
9. On the same date, the resident wrote to the landlord and made a formal complaint. She also noted that two workmen had previously inspected her property and queried when the next programme of planned works would be.
10. The landlord provided its stage one response on 26 February 2021. The landlord advised that it would “shortly” be tendering for a programme of planned works which would include painting, and that it was “likely” the resident’s property would be included. Regarding the recent inspection referred to by the resident, the landlord advised it had no record of this and surmised it may have been a contractor making an assessment pursuant to offering a quote during the tendering process. Regarding the bin door, the landlord reiterated that during COVID-19 restrictions, it was only completing emergency/urgent works. This was due in part to its repair contractors not being fully staffed.
11. Following the landlord’s stage one response, the resident requested an escalation of her complaint. She disputed that the inspections she had referred to were carried out by contractors pursuant to a quote, and advised that at the time, the inspectors explained their visit was in relation to asbestos in her property. She also expressed her dissatisfaction that the landlord had advised her property was “likely” to be included in the next programme of planned works, instead of giving her a firm answer. She also expressed her dissatisfaction that the landlord’s call handler had put the phone down on her during her original complaint.
12. The landlord provided its stage two response on 16 March 2021, in which it noted the following:
    1. Regarding repainting her property, the landlord apologised for its poor records in relation to when this was last done. The landlord acknowledged that repainting her property was now required, and further apologised its previous response had not given a timeframe for completion. It advised it was currently tendering for these works, which it hoped to complete in the coming financial year. It also confirmed the resident’s property would be included in the works.
    2. Regarding the bin door, the landlord reiterated that it was not carrying out routine works during the period of COVID-19 restrictions, but that it was recommencing routine works in April 2021. It requested that the resident contact it then and it would arrange for the works.
    3. Regarding the resident’s concerns about its call handler, the landlord advised it had spoken with the call handler who had advised they considered the resident to have been “rude” during their conversation, leading them to end the call. The landlord noted that the resident also considered the call handler to have been rude and apologised that the resident felt this way.
    4. Regarding the inspections referred to by the resident, the landlord reiterated its position that it was not aware of these inspections, and that it surmised they were carried out pursuant to a quote from a contractor.
13. Following the stage two response, it is evident that in or around September 2021, further inspections were carried out at the resident’s property, which identified that asbestos needed to be removed. The resident expressed her dissatisfaction to the landlord in November 2021 that while the fascias containing asbestos had been removed, her porch no longer had a roof. The landlord subsequently advised this would be addressed in the programme of planned works.
14. The landlord has subsequently advised this service that the programme of planned works was completed in March 2022, and that it understood that this included repairs to the porch, the repainting of the property, and repainting the bin door.

Assessment and findings

Bin door

15. During periods of COVID-19 restrictions, the Ombudsman has recognised that due to safety concerns and staff capacity, it was reasonable for landlords to have provided a reduced responsive repairs service. In such circumstances, the Ombudsman would still expect landlords to keep residents informed of such measures.
16. Following the landlord’s inspection of the resident’s bin storage cupboard in October 2020, it agreed that the door required repainting. While unsightly, it is not disputed that the painting of the door was not an emergency or urgent repair and was therefore a responsive repair.
17. While the landlord’s responsive repairs policy notes that responsive repairs will be completed within 28 calendar days, at the time of the inspection, the landlord was operating a reduced service during the period of COVID-19 restrictions. Based on the landlord’s internal notes, its operative informed the resident at the time of the inspection that only urgent repairs were currently being completed.
18. During the resident’s call to the landlord in February 2021, the landlord’s call operator again informed the resident that it was not currently carrying out routine repairs due to COVID-19 restrictions.
19. In its stage one response, the landlord again appropriately reiterated this position. Given that the resident had expressed she believed the works were not a COVID-19 risk because they were external, the landlord appropriately explained that its reduced service was also due to its repair contractors not being fully staffed. As noted above, while it may have been the case that there was reduced risk, the Ombudsman nevertheless considers it reasonable that the landlord had reduced service during this period due to both safety and staffing issues.
20. In its stage two response, the landlord appropriately advised that it would soon be offering routine repairs and requested that the resident contact it to book in the repair after this date. While it would have been helpful for it to have booked in this repair on its own initiative as it knew the repair remained outstanding, it was reasonable to request this given that some discussion about timings would have been required.
21. The landlord’s repair policy notes that where a repair is to be included in a programme of planned works, it may complete the repair outside of the 28-day window. It is not disputed that the landlord was in the process of arranging a programme of planned works relating to painting the property, and so while it took an extended period following the reintroduction of responsive repairs to paint the door, given that the state of repair of the door did not affect its functionality, it was reasonable for the landlord to have completed the door repainting alongside the other painting works.

Programme of planned works

22. The landlord has an obligation to maintain its properties. The Ombudsman notes that is common practice to do this by way of a combination of both responsive repairs and programmes of planned works. In instances where there is no immediate urgency, and where specialist contractors are required, programmes of planned works can be the most appropriate approach.
23. The landlord does not have a specified timeframe in which to complete programmes of planned works. Following the resident’s request for information about the last time her property was painted, the landlord advised that its records only went back 30 years, and there was no record of the property having been painted in this timeframe. Given that there was no requirement to paint the property within any specific timeframe, this would not amount to service failure. Additionally, while it would be helpful for the landlord to keep detailed records from the beginning of the property, its failure to have access to detailed records from over 30 years ago would not amount to service failure. The landlord appropriately communicated this to the resident following her initial complaint, and again as part of its stage two response.
24. As part of her initial complaint, the resident requested information about when the next programme of planned works would be and expressed concern that her property required painting. In its stage one response, the landlord failed to provide any specific information relating to this part of the complaint, instead noting it would “shortly” be tendering for painting works and that it was “likely” the resident’s property would be included. The landlord did not provide any specific timeframe and while the exact timings may not have been finalised at that point, it also did not commit to provide any further updates to the resident. Additionally, given that it was clear the resident wished for her property to be painted, its advice that her property was only “likely” would have left her unclear, and once again, the landlord failed to commit to a later update on whether her property would be included.
25. The landlord appropriately recognised this lack of clarity in its stage two response and offered an apology. It also appropriately confirmed the timeframe for the next programme of planned works and confirmed the resident’s property would be included. This response reasonably addressed the resident’s concerns. Had the landlord not recognised that its earlier response was lacking, a finding of service failure would have been made in this instance.
26. As part of her complaint, the resident also queried why two inspections of her property had occurred without explanation. It is evident that the landlord did not have records of these inspections, and so it was reasonable for it to have surmised that it was in relation to a contractor assessing a quote.
27. As part of her escalation request, however, the resident specifically advised that she had been informed the inspection was in relation to asbestos at her property, which would have been a concern for her. The landlord failed to address this concern in its stage two response or comment further other than repeating its position that the visit potentially related to a quote.
28. In its internal communication, as part of the stage two investigation, the landlord identified that a previous programme of planned works to address asbestos was carried out in the area, but that the resident’s property was “forgotten when tendering for the asbestos removal.” The internal communications also note that the resident was concerned her property had not been painted due to the presence of asbestos.
29. In summary the landlord was aware of the resident’s concern about asbestos in relation to her query about the next programme of planned works. It also identified that a previous programme of planned works related to asbestos, indicating the inspection could have related to this. It is also the case that there was asbestos at the property, which was a factor in the painting being completed. Given the above, the landlord’s failure to address the issue of asbestos in its stage two response would have left the resident unclear on this point and in the circumstances, amounted to service failure. While it is not evident this led to a delay in the works, the lack of clarity would have caused distress for the resident, for which an amount of £50 compensation is appropriate to recognise this service failure.

Staff behaviour

30. It is not disputed that the resident’s call to the landlord on 22 February 2021 was ended when the landlord’s call handler terminated the call. At the time of the call, the call handler made a telephone note to express their opinion that they had done this due to the resident being “rude” towards them. It is evident that the resident was also of the opinion that the call handler had been rude towards her, which she raised as part of complaint escalation.
31. The landlord appropriately included this concern as part of its stage two investigation. The Ombudsman would expect a landlord to carry out reasonable steps to investigate concerns such as this. As part of its investigation, the landlord appropriately spoke with its call handler and reviewed the call handler’s notes.
32. Given that this service has not been provided with a recording of the call, the Ombudsman cannot make a definitive determination that the call handler’s behaviour amounted to service failure. In the circumstances, it was appropriate that the landlord acknowledged the resident’s concerns and also demonstrated it had carried out a reasonable investigation.
33. The landlord’s apology about how the resident felt, while not an apology for its call handler’s behaviour, was an appropriate acknowledgement of her concerns, and given that no recording was available, its assurance that it sought to communicate in an “atmosphere of mutual respect” was a reasonable conclusion to the issue.

Determination (decision)

34. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was no maladministration by the landlord in respect of the complaints regarding its response to the resident’s reports concerning:
    1. repainting her bin cupboard storage door;
    2. its call handler’s behaviour.
35. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was service failure by the landlord in respect of the complaints regarding its response to the resident’s reports concerning its programme of planned works, including repainting her property.

Reasons

Bin door

36. The landlord appropriately set out its position that it was unable to complete routine repairs while COVID-19 restrictions were in place.
37. Following the reintroduction of routine repairs, given that the state of the repair of the door did not affect its function, it was reasonable for the landlord to include the works in its later programme of planned works which included painting.

Programme of planned works

38. While the landlord’s initial advise regarding future programmes of planned works was insufficient, it appropriately recognised this and provided further detail in its stage two response.
39. The landlord failed, however, to provide a reasonable response to the resident’s concerns about inspections of her property relating to asbestos being present. This failure to provide a position by the landlord amounted to service failure, for which compensation was appropriate.

Staff behaviour

40. Given that there was no recording of the call and that the resident and the call handler had different opinions about each other’s behaviour during the call, it was reasonable for the landlord to acknowledge the resident’s position and commit to communicate with mutual respect going forwards.

Orders

41. The Ombudsman orders the landlord to pay compensation of £50 for any distress and inconvenience caused to the resident by its failure to address her concerns about asbestos in relation to its programme of planned works.
42. This amount must be paid within four weeks of the date of this determination.
43. The Ombudsman orders the landlord to provide a breakdown of works it has completed as part of the planned programme. This should address the resident’s assertion that agreed repairs are still outstanding and incomplete. If this is the case the landlord should consider whether compensation for any delay is payable.