Crawley Borough Council (201913362)

Back to Top

 

 

 

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 201913362

Crawley Borough Council

26 January 2021


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 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 the resident’s reports of:

a.     A defective smoke alarm;

b.     Damage to her wall; and

c.      Concerns with the proximity of the gas pipes and electrical sockets in her property.

  1. The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

 

Background and summary of events

Background

  1. The resident is a Secure Tenant. She began her tenancy on 7 November 2019.
  2. The property is a newly built two-bedroom, ground floor flat.
  3. As a new build property, all faults and defects are covered under the developer’s one-year guarantee. Residents are instructed to make all reports of defects to the landlord however, to arrange the works on their behalf.

 

Legal and policy framework

Complaints policy

  1. The landlord has provided the Housing Ombudsman Service with a copy of its complaints policy. This outlines the landlord’s two-stage process, highlighting that at stage one and two the resident will receive a complaint response within 10 working days. If the landlord is unable to do this, the policy suggests that it will provide the resident with regular updates detailing the reasons for the delay and when the resident can expect a response.

 

Compensation policy

  1. The landlord has also provided this Service with a copy of its compensation procedure. This shows the landlord’s approach to addressing service failures and indicates that where there has been a clear failure, and the tenant has been inconvenienced or disadvantaged, the standard amount of £25 per incident will be awarded. This can be varied depending on the scale of inconvenience / disadvantage.

 

Summary of events

  1. On 7 November 2019, upon commencing her tenancy, the resident reported to the landlord that her smoke alarm was beeping and that there was a dent in the wall. The Ombudsman has not had sight of the resident’s initial report, however can see that the landlord completed a Defect Report Form (DRF) on the same day logging these issues. 

 

  1. On 27 November 2019 the resident made a stage one complaint. She said that since contacting the landlord on 7 November 2019, and being told that the developer would resolve the above issues, nothing had happened. She explained that she had made several calls to the landlord and had even spoken to the developer (who confirmed it had also attempted to contact the landlord on the same day), but no progress had been made. She stated that she had no option but to disconnect the smoke alarm, raising concerns for her family’s safety.

 

  1. On 9 December 2019 the landlord issued its stage one response (by post). It explained that, as the property was a new build, the developer was still responsible for any defects until 3 November 2020. It therefore supplied the resident with the relevant contact information. The landlord added:

a.     The developers had attempted to make contact with a member of its staff, with questions about the batteries, but the individual contacted was out of office during this time. The developer had now been redirected to the appropriate inbox.

b.     It had advised the developer that the smoke alarm issues had been resolved.

 

  1. On 15 December 2019 the resident contacted the landlord and highlighted that she had not received any correspondence. She explained that she had been told that she would receive a response by 12 December 2019, however this had not been done.

 

  1. On 16 December 2019 the landlord wrote to the resident. It noted that a complaint response had been issued by post on 9 December 2019, however attached a further copy to its email for the resident’s attention.

 

  1. On the same day, the resident wrote to the landlord in relation to the stage one response. She reiterated that she had chased the landlord on several occasions and added:

a.     She had been left for more than 20 days with a loud beep from the smoke alarm (every 32 seconds). She subsequently had to disconnect her smoke alarm.

b.     The developer had provided proof that it had made contact with the landlord on several occasions.

c.      The dent had not been fixed.

d.     She had raised questions (which the Ombudsman has not seen) regarding her gas pipe but had not received a response. She stated that this did not appear to meet the British Standards (under section 8.16.2) as it was too close to an electrical socket. The resident provided the relevant standard for the landlord’s consideration and requested that her complaint be escalated.

 

  1. On 9 January 2020 the landlord provided a review response. It apologised for the delay and noted:

a.     There had been an administrative error which resulted in delays. There was a requirement to establish whether the batteries in the smoke alarm had been changed before the developer would offer a replacement. The landlord explained that members of the repair team had not been aware of this and this caused a delay. It confirmed that the smoke alarm would be replaced on 9 January 2020.

b.     A doorstop should have been fitted to prevent the door handle banging on to the wall. This would be fitted on 7 February 2020 along with repair of the damage to the wall.

c.      It should have required the developer to make alterations to the electrical socket and gas pipe. The developer would undertake this work at the resident’s convenience.

d.     The landlord acknowledged that it also had not managed the resident’s complaint satisfactorily at stage one, in accordance with its procedure.

It stated that it would therefore offer £100 compensation, calculated as £25 per service failure, in line with its usual compensation practice.

 

  1. On 12 January 2020 the resident thanked the landlord for its response however explained that she did not consider the compensation to be a sufficient solution. She stated that this barely dealt with the health and safety issues and she was still faced with the issues regarding her gas pipe.

 

  1. On 7 and 11 February 2020 the resident wrote to the landlord expressing that the gas pipe had not been rectified as agreed. She explained that an operative had attended her property however no inspection or works to rectify this problem were undertaken.

 

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of a defective smoke alarm

  1. As set out in the Background section of this report, it was the landlord’s responsibility to liaise with the developer and arrange repairs, where reports of defects had been identified. The landlord therefore should have fulfilled this role, within good time, following the resident’s reports of a faulty smoke alarm on 7 November 2019. The Ombudsman notes that the landlord did complete a DRF on the same day, however cannot see that any arrangements or communication was made with the resident until it was prompted by the stage one complaint. In the Ombudsman’s opinion, this was unreasonable. The Ombudsman notes that in the landlord’s complaint responses, it was explained that this delay had been caused by administrative errors resulting in poor communication lines between the landlord and developer. In any case, the landlord should have maintained communication with the resident, and actively pursued a prompt repair. The Ombudsman cannot see that the landlord did this.

 

  1. The resident explained on 27 November 2019 that after 20 days of the alarm sounding, the device had to be disconnected. She therefore expressed concern for the health and safety of her family with no functioning smoke alarm. The Ombudsman can see that the issue was subsequently resolved on 9 December 2019 and that this was highlighted in the landlord’s stage one response. In the Ombudsman’s view however, greater consideration should have been given to the length of time that the resident endured the beeping alarm, and acknowledgement of any subsequent risks to the resident’s safety. The Ombudsman cannot see that the landlord empathised with the resident’s experience or recognised the impact that its delay had on her household (loss of sleep for both her son and her). This was unreasonable.
  2. The Ombudsman notes that the resident expressed her dissatisfaction with this in her stage two escalation request. This was acknowledged and the landlord did recognise that its failure to appropriately follow up matters resulted in an unsatisfactory outcome. In the Ombudsman’s view however, the landlord’s offer of compensation (£25) did not fairly reflect the resident’s experience. While the Ombudsman recognises that this is the standard award in line with the landlord’s compensation policy, this was unsatisfactory in recognising the inconvenience, distress, the amount of time that had passed since the initial report and the time spent chasing the landlord.

 

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of damage to her wall

  1. Similarly, the resident alerted the landlord to the damage to her wall as early as 7 November 2019. Again however, the Ombudsman cannot see that the landlord actively pursued this matter on behalf of the resident following its submission of the DRF. The landlord provided no updates on when or how this issue would be addressed, and due to its administrative errors, delayed the arrangement of a suitable fix. From the evidence provided, the Ombudsman cannot see that the landlord offered the resident an update until 9 January 2020 and subsequently, the damage to the wall / the suggested solution were not implemented until 7 February 2020.

 

  1. The Ombudsman has considered this and has determined that there was a clear service failure. The Ombudsman is satisfied, however, that the landlord satisfactorily acknowledged this service failure, and that a proportionate award of compensation (£25) was offered. While the Ombudsman is concerned about the delays, the Ombudsman cannot see that the landlord’s delay adversely impacted the resident’s occupancy. It was therefore appropriate for the landlord to offer its standard award in acknowledgement of the administrative delay. The Ombudsman is satisfied that, with this, the landlord ensured that the works were undertaken as promised, and on the arranged date. This was appropriate.

 

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of concerns with the proximity of the gas pipes and electrical sockets in her property

  1. While it is unclear when the resident first raised her queries regarding the proximity of the gas pipes and the electrical sockets, the Ombudsman notes that the landlord’s failure to respond was first complained about on 16 December 2019. In the Ombudsman’s view, as there was a clear health and safety concern here, it would have been appropriate for the landlord to respond to the resident’s query at the earliest opportunity, in order to arrange any works needed as soon as possible. The Ombudsman is satisfied however, that the landlord offered an appropriate response on 9 January 2020, recognising that alterations to the electrical socket and gas pipe should have been made and would be undertaken at the resident’s convenience. This was reasonable. The Ombudsman also acknowledges that a compensation award was made (£25) to account for any inconvenience.
  2. One of the key purposes of an effective complaints procedure is for the landlord to acknowledge where there have been failures in its service, and to take appropriate action to put things right. The Ombudsman is content that the landlord identified the appropriate actions to put matters right within its stage two response, however the Ombudsman has noted that on 7 February 2020 following a visit to the resident’s property, the alterations had not taken place. The Ombudsman has considered the evidence and cannot see that a reasonable explanation was offered to the resident, explaining why this work had not been undertaken. The Ombudsman notes that the resident wrote further to the landlord on 7 and 11 February 2020 raising her dissatisfaction with this. In the Ombudsman’s opinion, the works should have reasonably been completed by this time.

 

  1. Contrary to the landlord’s stage two assertion, the Ombudsman has concluded that it failed to undertake the works at the resident’s convenience and has therefore ordered a new offer of compensation based on the level of disadvantage (as per the compensation policy).

 

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint

  1. The Ombudsman has considered the landlord’s handling of the complaint and, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, the landlord satisfactorily recognised the delays in its process. At stage one of the complaints process, a complaint response is to be provided within 10 working days. The Ombudsman notes, however, that following the resident’s complaint on 27 November 2019, the resident did not receive a response until 16 December 2019, days after the expected timeframe. The Ombudsman acknowledges that a complaint response was produced on 9 December 2019 and that according to the landlord, this was posted to the resident. In the Ombudsman’s view however, the landlord should have done more to ensure that the resident received the response within good time (i.e. by sending it via email as well as post).

 

  1. Similarly, following the resident’s request for her complaint to be escalated on 16 December 2019, the landlord’s final response should have been provided within 10 working days. The Ombudsman notes that this too was delayed however, until 9 January 2020. The Ombudsman has considered this and notes that the landlord failed to honour the timescales set out in its policy at both stages of the complaint process. With this said, however, the Ombudsman recognises that the landlord did, in its final response, apologise for the delay and acknowledge that the resident’s complaint had not been managed satisfactorily. An offer of compensation (£25) was therefore made in recognition of this. In the Ombudsman’s opinion, this was reasonable and proportionate. The Ombudsman is satisfied that the offer reflected the extent of the complaint handling failure and also that the award was made in line with the landlord’s compensation policy.

 

Determination (decision)

  1. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was a service failure in respect of the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of a defective smoke alarm.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 55(b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, in respect of the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of damage to her wall, the landlord offered redress to the complainant prior to the Ombudsman’s investigation which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion resolved the complaint satisfactorily.
  3. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was a service failure in respect of the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of concerns with the proximity of the gas pipes and electrical sockets in her property.
  4. In accordance with paragraph 55(b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, in respect of the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint; the landlord offered redress to the complainant prior to the Ombudsman’s investigation which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion resolved the complaint satisfactorily.

 

Reasons

  1. The Ombudsman has arrived at the above determination as:

a.     The landlord failed to appropriately liaise with the developer and to arrange the repair of the resident’s smoke alarm within good time. The Ombudsman cannot see that the resident was provided with any updates on why there was a delay (until she raised a complaint) and no consideration was given to her health and safety concerns. Moreover, the landlord failed to acknowledge the resident’s experience – the continuous sounding alarm causing distress, a lack of sleep, and unsettling her child. The Ombudsman has therefore concluded that the landlord’s offer of compensation failed to adequately reflect the resident’s circumstances proportionately.

b.     While the damage to the resident’s wall was outstanding and arrangements to rectify this were delayed, there was no adverse impact on the resident’s occupancy in the Ombudsman’s opinion. The landlord’s apology and offer of compensation was therefore adequate in recognising the delay and in putting things right. As mentioned above, the Ombudsman is satisfied that the landlord made arrangements to rectify the damage and completed the works on the arranged date.

c.      Contrary to the proposed resolution within the landlord’s final response, the landlord failed to undertake the gas pipe /electrical socket works on the expected date. This resulted in further disappointment and correspondence from the resident. The Ombudsman cannot see that the landlord offered a reasonable response for the lack of works and is unclear whether this work is still outstanding. The Ombudsman has therefore concluded that the landlord failed to put things right within a reasonable period of time. 

d.     The landlord satisfactorily recognised that it had not managed the resident’s complaint and made a reasonable offer of compensation to account for this. The Ombudsman notes that while the delay would have had an effect on the resident’s ability to bring her complaint to the Ombudsman Service for investigation, the complaint delays were not significant. The Ombudsman is therefore satisfied that there was not a significant adverse effect on the resident caused by these delays.

 

Orders and recommendations

Outcome

  1. In recognition of the landlord’s service failures, the Ombudsman orders the landlord to award the resident £150 compensation. This has been broken down as:
    1. £100 for the defective smoke alarm; and
    1. £50 for the resident’s concerns with the proximity of the gas pipes and electrical sockets in her property.
  1. This payment should be made in addition to the £100 already offered by the landlord in its final response.
  1. The landlord should make this payment within four weeks of receiving this letter.
  2. The landlord should also, if it has not done so already, ensure the alterations promised to the resident with regards to the gas pipe and electrical socket are completed. Where this work is still outstanding, the landlord should write to the resident and arrange a suitable appointment, in light of the current pandemic, to undertake the works. This correspondence should be issued within four weeks of receiving this determination.

 

Recommendations

  1. The landlord should ensure that all reported defects are passed to the developer (where it remains responsible for repairs) within good time. As the representing body for the resident, the landlord should actively pursue outstanding repairs on behalf of its tenants and should ensure that the resident is kept up to date on the process and any subsequent delays. While repairs may fall under the developer’s guarantee during the first year of residence, the landlord still has a responsibility to honour and protect the rights of the resident under the tenancy agreement.