Landlords can now complete the Complaint Handling Code Annual Submissions form. More information is available online.

Charnwood Borough Council (202111440)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202111440

Charnwood Borough Council

11 August 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 handling of repairs following a fire at the property below the resident. Specifically, the complaint relates to:
    1. The landlord’s handling of works to the resident’s floorboards.
    2. The landlord’s handling of repairs to the ceiling of the property below.
    3. The landlord’s handling of works to board up the windows and the quality of these works.
  2. The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

Background

  1. The resident has been a secure tenant of the landlords since 12 May 2003.
  2. Following a fire at the property below on 17 June 2020, the resident complained about the landlord’s delay in carrying out repair works at the property and the property below, as well as its communication with him about the works. The resident also cited damage to his possessions and detriment to his health due to the fire and associated delay in carrying out the works and the landlord’s overall handling of the matter.
  3. In its stage two response, the landlord partially upheld the complaint.  Specifically, it upheld that there was delay in carrying out repair works to the floorboards and repair to the ceiling of the property below.  It also acknowledged communication failures in respect of the repairs.  The landlord offered the resident £150 compensation in recognition of the time and trouble these issues had caused the resident.
  4. The resident remains dissatisfied with the level of compensation offered, in particular, that it does not adequately reflect the length of delay, poor communication and impact of the issues on him.

 

 

Assessment and findings

Contextual information

  1. Following a fire in the property below on 17 June 2020, the landlord carried out an assessment of the resident’s property.  This assessment determined that there was a smell of the after effects of the fire in the resident’s property which, according to the resident, was intensified by the gaps in the flooring.
  2. The landlord therefore offered the resident a temporary decant to a one-bedroom flat, whilst works were undertaken to remedy the damage caused from the fire.  The resident declined the offer of a decant, however, due to not being satisfied with the location or size of the property. He subsequently remained in the property whilst works were due to be undertaken.
  3. While the Ombudsman is aware that the resident subsequently complained about the decant options that he was presented with, this matter forms part of separate complaint. As such, this has only been included within this report for contextual purposes.

Floorboards

  1. Following contact from the resident on 14 September 2020, and a subsequent inspection on 6 October 2020, the landlord agreed to undertake works to address the resident’s living room floorboards. Its records demonstrate that while it sought to arrange this straight away, the resident had advised against this as he explained he was in the process of moving the living room around. The resident has disputed the advice that the landlord alleges it gave at this time.
  2. In any case, the resident was concerned that the condition of the flooring had let an excessive amount of smoke and residual smells into the property and that the gaps would also allow dust in, once works at the property below commenced. It appears that there was some confusion which resulted in the landlord not arranging an appointment for these works for a later time, and the resident waiting for contact. There was subsequently nothing further on this matter until the resident chased an update towards the end of November 2020. 
  3. Following the resident’s contact, the landlord confirmed for the resident on 15 December 2020 that works had been arranged. This Service notes that further contact was made by the resident on 4 January 2021 with no response from the landlord. The resident further chased this twice in April 2021 within which he requested that the hall and lounge floorboards be added to the job. It was reasonable that the landlord applied its discretion here and agreed to do so.
  4. Despite the absence of updates and the 28 day timescale for standard repairs set out in the landlord’s repairs policy, works were not rearranged until the end of May 2021. This Service is aware that in its stage zero response in June 2021, the landlord explained that this was due to non-essential works being postponed due to COVID-19. 
  5. In the Ombudsman’s opinion, nonetheless, the length of time taken to arrange the works to the floorboards was inappropriate. Although it is accepted that COVID-19 would have somewhat impacted the landlord’s service, given that government guidance still enabled landlord’s to operate at full capacity during this time (in line with Public Health Guidance), it should not have taken the landlord four months to reschedule this work.
  6. What’s more, it would have been reasonable for the landlord to have maintained communication with the resident during the time that the works were outstanding. This Service has not seen any evidence that the resident was given any clear information about why the flooring works had not commenced, and when it was likely to be completed in full, prior to his complaint. This was inappropriate. While the landlord suggested that the Repair Team Manager would make contact in March 2021 to offer clarity on its position with regards to this, there is no evidence that this took place.
  7. Adding to this, while the landlord did attend the resident’s property in May 2021, this work was still only partially completed. It is noted that the remaining work was postponed until August 2021, a further three months later. As such, while the landlord did accept in its final response that there was some delay, and offered an apology / compensation, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, its offer of compensation fell short in recognising the extent of the inconvenience and lack of proactivity.

Ceiling

  1. The resident highlighted that as ceiling works were outstanding at the property below, and with gaps in his flooring, he experienced cold temperatures and drafts. In particular in the winter, with the flat below being unoccupied, this was worse and also worsened the smell of the aftermath of the fire. Having declined the landlord’s offer of temporary accommodation, he made several attempts to establish when this work would take place and shared how it was impacting him. 
  2. As the repair works at the property below were subject to an insurance claim, this Service appreciates that there was a more protracted process which would not have enabled the landlord to offer a repair within 28 calendar days. The landlord shared updates with the resident at several different stages and explained why the restorative works had not taken place. This was reasonable.
  3. The landlord noted in its complaint response that in February 2021 it sought to undertake works to address the ceiling, however its Health and Safety Manager advised against entering the property. While this may have been for good reason, this was not communicated to the resident at the time.
  4. With consideration of the information shared, there is also no evidence demonstrating that the landlord took reasonable steps to move this repair along. Despite the acknowledgement of the impact this was having on the resident, and confirming for itself that a strong smell could be smelt (emanating from the property below), this work remained outstanding for a significant length of time. This Service notes that more than a year passed before any repairs commenced. Noting that the resident had felt unable to use one of his rooms due to the strength of the smell, it would have been reasonable for the landlord to have discussed an interim solution with him.
  5. While the landlord advised that the delay in commencing works was also partly due to COVID-19 and being unable to establish contact with the insurer, this issue should have been better managed. The landlord has also provided this Service with no evidence of it trying to speed this up.
  6. It appears that the landlord did accept that there was a delay in arranging the works for the neighbour’s property and offered an apology for this. It would have also been reasonable though, considering the resident’s reports of cold, for the landlord to have explored an alternative means of supporting the resident too (e.g. by providing temporary heaters) during the time that the works remained outstanding. The decline of the landlord’s choice of temporary accommodation early on did not mean that the landlord’s responsibilities were negated.
  7. For completeness, although the landlord referred to the quality of the ceiling works before the fire took place, and advised the resident these were appropriate, this Service is unable to verify this. It was reasonable, nevertheless, that the landlord responded to the resident’s concern.

Windows

  1. Once on notice, the landlord is required to carry out the repairs it is responsible for within a reasonable period of time in accordance with its obligations.  What is “reasonable” will depend on the individual circumstances of the case.  In this case, the resident reported cracks in the windows as a result of the fire, which were causing his property to be drafty and cold.
  2. It is unclear when the resident first made this report to the landlord, however this Service has seen in the landlord’s records that in November 2020, the resident chased an update on when this work would take place. While COVID-19 would have impacted the landlord’s ability to undertake this work too, it appears that it was able to subsequently do so on or around February 2021. In light of the disruptions the landlord explained it was experiencing; namely, that it had to postpone all non-essential repairs for the time being, this was appropriate. Although this exceeded the timescale set out in the repair policy, it was reasonable in light of the circumstance.
  3. With this said, as the resident suggested that the boarding of the windows was poorly done within his escalation request, it would have been reasonable for the landlord to have assessed this to satisfy for itself that the works were to a good standard. This Service cannot see that the landlord did this however, or took any further investigation following the resident’s comments. The landlord was therefore unable to conclude within its stage two response that the windows had been boarded up adequately.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint

  1. It is understandable that the resident was frustrated at the situation, given the length of time that had passed since the fire and the delay in undertaking repair works. There was also miscommunication with the resident not being aware that he had to let the landlord know when he wanted the floorboard works to commence and further, during 24 May 2021 appointment, during which time he was of the understanding that works would be completed.  This Service cannot see that he was advised that the purpose of this appointment was to obtain measurements.
  2. Overall, this Service has found that although the landlord did provide the resident with a number of updates, its general management of his expectations was poor. The resident was consistently led to believe that works were nearing commencement. In the Ombudsman’s opinion, given that the landlord was managing the repair of the below property via the insurer, it would have been reasonable for it to have explained this process to the resident – at the earliest opportunity. This would have given him an awareness of the complexity of the matter and an understanding of why it could take some time.
  3. This Service recognises that on several occasions, the resident had to initiate contact with the landlord to obtain an update and as the landlord acknowledged, on numerous occasions, did not receive a response. This Service is unable to establish whether there were more than five occasions in which the landlord failed to respond, as the resident suggested.
  4. The landlord did accept that its communication was poor, both in its response to the complaint and in its internal correspondence. This poor communication appeared to be in part, due to a period of absence from the surveyor, although this only accounted for a short period of time. It subsequently made an offer of compensation.
  5. This Service appreciates that as the landlord was not responsible for the initial fire, it advised the resident that any claim for damage to personal property caused by this would need to be done via the resident’s own contents insurance. This is in line with standard practice. Given that the resident later explained that the state of the flooring enabled the smoke to enter his property and subsequently damage his belongings, however, it would have been reasonable for the landlord to have shared the details for its own insurer for the resident to pursue a claim. It was unreasonable that within its final response, it did not do this.
  6. Moreover, it was not unreasonable that the landlord concluded in the absence of evidence that there were no medical grounds to increase its offer of compensation. While the resident suggested that the landlord’s handling of matters impacted his mental and physical health, and indicated that evidence of this would be provided, it does not appear that this was done. The landlord subsequently would have been unable to rely on this.
  7. Finally, it has been noted that within this case, the landlord undertook a three stage complaints process (in line with its procedure). This is contrary to the Housing Ombudsman Service’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code), however, which emphasizes that “a landlord’s complaints procedure shall comprise of two stages”.
  8. While the Code does make some provision for a three stage process where a request has been made and the reasons have been set out in the landlord’s self-assessment against the Code, the landlord has not done this. Therefore this Service has not considered its additional stage to be appropriate.
  9. By introducing a stage zero, rather than dealing with the resident’s complaint initially at stage one, the landlord delayed the complaints process and ultimately, the resident in obtaining its final position and in being able to bring his matter to the Ombudsman Service. This is contrary to this Service’s expectation.
  10. In light of the full circumstance of the resident’s case, it would have therefore been reasonable for the landlord to have used the stage two review as an opportunity to acknowledge the resident’s experience and increase the level of compensation. Its failure to do this, in light of the oversights noted above, meant that it did not do enough to resolve the resident’s complaint.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was:
    1. A service failure in relation to the landlord’s handling of works to the resident’s floorboards.
    2. A service failure in relation to the landlord’s handling of repairs to the ceiling of the property below.
    3. A service failure in relation to the landlord’s handling of works to board up the windows and the quality of these works.
    4. A service failure in relation to the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

  1. Within 28 days of the date of this report, the landlord is ordered to award the resident a total of £350 compensation , broken down as:
    1. £200 in recognition of handling of and delay to the repair works (relating to the flooring, ceiling, and windows).
    2. £100 in recognition of its communication, management of the resident’s expectations, and handling of the resident’s complaint.
    3. £50 in recognition of the stress and inconvenience caused.
  2. This amount will replace the £150 already offered to the resident.

Recommendations

  1. If the landlord has not done so already, it should revisit its complaints policy to ensure that it is operating a two-stage process. If, contrary to this, it has found that a three-stage process is absolutely required, it should set out its reasons why within its self-assessment and share this with the Ombudsman Service.