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

Croydon Council (202005546)

Back to Top

 

 

 

 

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202005546

Croydon Council

8 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:
    1. Section 20 work that was completed by the landlord at the resident’s property in 2016.
    2. Charges for the section 20 works which the resident opted out of.
    3. The landlord’s response to the resident’s request to produce a revised invoice for section 20 works.
    4. The landlord’s handling of the associated complaint.

Jurisdiction

  1. What we can and cannot consider is called the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. This is governed by the Housing Ombudsman Scheme. When a complaint is brought to the Ombudsman, we must consider all the circumstances of the case as there are sometimes reasons why a complaint will not be investigated.
  2. After carefully considering all the evidence, in accordance with paragraphs 39(e) and 39(g) respectively of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme (‘the Scheme’), the following aspects of the complaint are outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction:
    1. Section 20 work that was completed by the landlord at the resident’s property in 2016.
    2. Charges for the section 20 works which the resident opted out of.
  3. It is noted that the resident raised her formal complaint with the landlord on 11 December 2019 and the repairs and maintenance work referred to in her complaint occurred in 2016. Paragraph 39(e) of the Scheme, states that the Ombudsman will not investigate complaints which “were not brought to the attention of the member as a formal complaint within a reasonable period which would normally be within 6 months of the matters arising”. Therefore, a determination will not made on this aspect of the complaint.
  4. Paragraph 39(g) of the Scheme specifies that the Ombudsman will not consider complaints which “concern the level of rent or service charge or the amount of the rent or service charge increase”. As the charges for the works were recoverable by the landlord through the service charge, this Service is unable to consider these and a determination will not be made on this aspect of the complaint.

Background and summary of events

Background

  1. The resident is a leaseholder and is represented in the complaint by her daughter, who has power of attorney. Both parties will be referred to as ‘the resident’.
  2. The landlord is a local authority and is the freeholder of the property.
  3. The landlord’s complaints policy and procedure provides for a two-stage internal complaints process. At stage one, the complaint is to be acknowledged within 5 working days and full response provided to the resident within 20 working days, unless an extension is agreed. At the final stage of the process, the landlord is to provide a full response to the resident within 20 working days.
  4. The landlord’s “our customer commitment” webpage sets out its commitment to be “open, honest and transparent” when dealing with residents’ enquiries which includes providing timeframes for responses and informing the resident of any issues along the way.

Summary of events

  1. A section 20 notice was issued to the resident on 10 February 2016 to notify her of proposed cyclical external decoration works.
  2. On 4 February 2019 a residents’ meeting was held in which various aspects of the cyclical decoration works were discussed between the landlord and the residents of the block.
  3. On 5 June 2019 the resident emailed the landlord to request a revised invoice which she had discussed with it on 22 May 2019. It replied on 10 June 2019 to advise that the revised invoice would be issued by its service charge team and was likely to be issued in July 2019.
  4. On 1 August 2019 the resident chased the landlord for the invoice, highlighting that it was now August. She asked for an update or the contact details of someone on the service charge team she could communicate with. Later that day, the landlord apologised to the resident and advised that it would be calculating the revised final accounts that month which would be submitted to its service charge team. She replied later that day to express her frustration at the delay.
  5. The resident chased the landlord again for the revised invoice on 20 November 2019. In the absence of a response from it, she emailed it again on 6 December 2019 to ask for a response of any kind.
  6. On 9 December 2019 the landlord apologised to the resident for the delay, stating that it was still yet to complete its calculations but hoped to issue the final account invoice before the Christmas holiday. She responded later that day to state that it was “totally unreasonable” that it had taken so long to issue the invoice despite it agreeing with her in May 2019 that this would available in the summer.
  7. The resident emailed the landlord on 11 December 2019 to express her dissatisfaction with its responses and its lack of follow-up to various enquiries she had raised with it and enquired about how to raise a formal complaint.
  8. The landlord issued its stage one complaint response under its formal complaints procedures on 17 December 2019 in which it explained that it needed to discuss both its and the resident’s concerns with its contractor before it was able to make any changes to the figures. It acknowledged that it had failed to respond to the resident within the timeframe it had agreed with her and therefore it would waive its administration fee of £67.12. This would be deducted from the resident’s service charge liability for her contribution to the works.
  9. On 30 December 2019, in response to a revised invoice from the landlord dated 16 December 2019, the resident advised that she had yet to receive a response from the landlord and raised various points of dispute relating to the works. She stated that she would not paying the invoice immediately or fully and contended that:
    1. The works had been of poor quality and investigations into this had not been completed.
    2. Insufficient support had been offered to her to understand the implications of the work and gain her consent, despite it being aware of her vulnerability.
    3. She had been required to be excessively involved in contacting it about the issues.
    4. A disputed charge for an aspect of the works had not been considered.
  10. The landlord issued a follow-up to its stage one complaint response to the resident on 10 January 2020. In this, it asserted that it had received no prior communication from her regarding the section 20 proposal issued in February 2016 and that its housing department had never been informed of her vulnerability. The landlord attributed this to data protection restrictions between its various departments. The landlord agreed that charges for certain works should not have been passed onto the resident and these would be omitted from the updated invoice which it would arrange to be issued to her.
  11. The landlord confirmed to the resident on 14 January 2020 that a further reduction had been agreed and provided a revised breakdown of the costs related to the section 20 works.
  12. On 26 February 2020 the resident emailed the landlord to state that she was dissatisfied with the outcome of her complaint and wanted it to be reviewed. She felt it had not sufficiently acknowledged the “time, effort and stress” required on her part over “years” of dealing with it over the section 20 works. The resident stated that she had never received any personal apology or compensation for her experience.
  13. The resident requested clarification of the landlord’s offer of waiving the administration charge. She also asserted that her diagnosis of her vulnerability had been made five years prior to it issuing the section 20 notice which affected her ability to respond appropriately to it and it was not her responsibility to “connect the dots” to inform it of this. The resident stated that she could not have been aware of the data protection regulations which the landlord was subject to. She asserted that she had informed it previously of her condition but did not recall who she spoke to.
  14. The landlord issued a further response to the resident at stage one of its complaints process on 19 March 2020 in which it stated that compensation was not appropriate as it had acknowledged its communication failures and waived its administration fee in recognition of this. It reiterated that its housing department had not been made aware of her vulnerability when the property was purchased four years previously and, had it been, it would have handled the section 20 process differently.
  15. The resident emailed the landlord on 1 June 2020 to ask why it had not responded at the final stage of its complaints procedure. It replied the same day to apologise that it had not acknowledged her request for escalation. The resident confirmed on 4 June 2020 that she wanted her complaint escalated as she was frustrated that knowledge of her vulnerability had not been shared between the departments of the landlord’s organisation.
  16. To resolve her complaint, the resident asked for:
    1. Personal apologies from two staff members she had been dealing with.
    2. Compensation for her time and trouble.
    3. All outstanding works to be completed.
  17. The landlord issued its final stage complaint response to the resident on 2 July 2020 in which it explained that her responses to it on 30 December 2019 and 26 February 2020 were directed to one member of staff which was why it had not acknowledged her complaint escalation request. It apologised for this.
  18. The landlord related the events concerning the section 20 planned works which were completed in 2016. It noted that, following dissatisfaction from residents over the standard of the works, a residents’ meeting took place, followed by a meeting between itself and the resident in which it agreed that it would undertake a full review of the standard of work and issue revised invoices. The landlord acknowledged that the interval between 5 June 2019, when the resident requested an updated invoice, and 14 January 2020, when it provided the revised costs, was likely to have caused her frustration.
  19. The landlord apologised for the “exceptional” delay in providing the updated invoice to the resident, attributing this to delays in obtaining the correct information from its contractor and needing to carry out further inspections.
  20. The landlord noted that the resident had advised that she was “5 years into her diagnosis” of her vulnerability and asserted that, while other departments within its organisation may have been aware of this, this information would not have been passed onto its housing department without explicit consent. In the absence of formal notification that power of attorney had been conferred to a third party, it confirmed that it would have continued to communicate with the leaseholder of the property.
  21. The landlord noted that a reduced invoice was provided to the resident on 14 January 2020 which took into account certain disputed works and a waiver of the £67.12 admin charge. It asserted that this bill was “fair after assessing the work that took place”.
  22. The landlord stated that the staff members which the resident had been communicating with had apologised for the inconvenience caused to her, while adding that some delays had been unavoidable. Despite this, it acknowledged that the length of time taken to respond was outside of what is reasonably expected and offered compensation of £100 which it said it would deduct from the invoice previously provided to her. The landlord confirmed that this concluded its internal complaints procedure and directed the resident to the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman should she remain dissatisfied.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s response to the resident’s request to produce a revised invoice for section 20 works

  1. While historical events have been referred to in the resident’s and landlord’s correspondence, this assessment will focus on events from May 2019 onwards, six months prior to the resident raising a formal complaint on 11 December 2019.
  2. It is not disputed that the landlord agreed with the resident on 22 May 2019 to provide a revised invoice for the cost of the section 20 works. It is noted that further involvement was required of her on 5 June, 1 August, 20 November, 6 December and 9 December 2019 to pursue the provision of this information from it.
  3. In response to the resident’s contact, the landlord responded within reasonable timeframes on 10 June and 1 August; however, there is no evidence of it responding to her request for an update on 20 November 2019. Further contact was required by her on 6 December 2019 to prompt a response from it on 9 December 2019. On this occasion the landlord failed to respond which necessitated further contact from the resident.
  4. In the landlord’s emails on 5 June, 1 August and 9 December 2019 to the resident, vague timeframes were provided to her each time of approximately one month. These approximate timeframes elapsed on each occasion and there was no evidence of it informing her of the reasons why, which prompted further involvement from her. This was a failing on the landlord’s part as it went against its commitment in its “our customer commitment” webpage, above at point 4, to keep residents informed of any issues along the way.
  5. The landlord’s stage one complaint response on 17 December 2019 and its final stage complaint response on 2 July 2020 to the resident both attributed the delay in providing the updated invoice to the requirement for requiring further information. Had this been explained to the resident in its earlier replies to her, it is likely that the level of involvement, and likely frustration, on her part could have been avoided.
  6. The landlord acknowledged and apologised for its failure to respond in a timely manner in its complaint responses of 17 December 2019 and 2 July 2020 and awarded a total of £167.12 in compensation. This was comprised of waiving the £67.12 administration fee in the former response and an additional award of £100 in the latter response.
  7. It should be noted that the purpose of compensation considered by the Ombudsman is not to punish the landlord, it is to ensure that the level of compensation reasonably and proportionately recognises any detriment caused by its failings.
  8. Considering the failures exhibited by the landlord in its response to the resident’s request, the award of £167.12 was a reasonable offer. This award is also broadly in accordance with the Ombudsman’s own remedies guidance which says compensation amount of this size are appropriate where “there has been service failure which had an impact on the [resident] but… may not have significantly affected the overall outcome for [her]”. Therefore, there were failures on the landlord’s part, but it recognised and apologised for these and offered a reasonable level of redress.

The landlord’s handling of the associated complaint

  1. In the landlord’s final stage complaint response on 2 July 2020, it acknowledged and apologised for its failure to recognise the resident’s request to escalate her complaint to the final stage of its complaints procedure. Whilst it provided an explanation for why this may not have been acknowledged earlier, it was reasonable for it to deem this as a failure on its part. This is because the landlord should have noted that the resident continued to be dissatisfied with its responses and registered this.
  2. While the landlord did not specifically make an award of compensation for its failure to escalate the resident’s complaint, its award of the additional £100 in its final stage complaint response on 2 July 2020 for its delays in responding to her is a reasonable and proportionate amount to recognise this failing and the failings detailed above.
  3. It is noted that the landlord’s final stage complaint response of 2 July 2020 did not signpost the resident to this Service if she remained dissatisfied. This Service is the appropriate Ombudsman for disputes concerning a landlord’s provision or allocation of housing. Failure to signpost to this Service by a member landlord is likely to render it non-complaint with this Service’s Complaint Handling Code (‘the Code’). From 1 January 2020 non-compliance with the Code may result in complaint handling failure orders being issued to the landlord. Therefore, a recommendation regarding this will be made below.

Determination (decision)

  1. In accordance with paragraph 55(b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord has offered redress to the resident prior to investigation which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, resolves the complaint concerning its response to her request to produce a revised invoice for section 20 works satisfactorily.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 55(b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord has offered redress to the resident prior to investigation which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, resolves the complaint concerning its handling of the associated complaint satisfactorily.

Reasons

  1. The landlord acknowledged and apologised for its failings in the handling of the resident’s request for a revised invoice and offered a reasonable and proportionate award of compensation.
  2. The landlord acknowledged and apologised for its failure to escalate the resident’s complaint to the final stage and offered a reasonable and proportionate award of compensation.

Recommendations

  1. It is recommended that the landlord:
    1. If it has not yet done so, deduct the £167.12 awarded to the resident as compensation from her final invoice for the section 20 works.
    2. Assess its complaint handling against the Code set out on our website. Further information on the Code can be found at: https://www.housing-ombudsman.org.uk/landlords-info/complaint-handling-code/