Dacorum Borough Council (202314190)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202314190

Dacorum Borough Council

22 August 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 works to upgrade the resident’s kitchen and bathroom.
2. This Service has also considered the landlord’s complaint handling and record keeping.

Background

3. The resident is a secure tenant of the landlord. The property is a 3-bedroom house. The landlord does not hold any record of vulnerabilities for the resident.
4. As part of an improvements programme the landlord began repairs on 2 February 2023 to replace the resident’s kitchen and bathroom. On 9 February 2023, the resident complained to the landlord about the work that it had completed to date. She was without cooking facilities and said her home was uninhabitable as a result.
5. On 21 February 2023, the landlord provided its stage 1 complaint response. It upheld the complaint. It said that its contractors pre-start meeting with the resident would have advised that works would be completed on a rolling basis and that it would not be expected to attend every day. The landlord accepted that works had not progressed quickly enough and that communication with the resident was not always accurate. It said that it was working with its contractor to improve its services.
6. The landlord agreed that the quality of some works needed to be rectified and said that the kitchen and bathroom installation was due to be complete on 24 February 2023. It said that temporary cooking facilities should have been offered by the contractor before the works began. It noted that these had since been provided. As a resolution to the complaint the landlord said it would monitor the works and provide regular updates to the resident.
7. On 21 February 2023, the resident escalated her complaint. She said that the contractor never held a pre-start meeting with her. She said that the electric had been cut in her kitchen so she could not avail of the temporary cooking facility provided. She was unhappy that the landlord had not considered compensation for the incurred costs as a result of this failure, she had to pay for takeaway food and eat out in this period. She further complained about the contractor’s behaviour and enclosed images of shoes that were damaged by the works. She also complained that because the bathroom door was widened, her carpet did not fit. She reported an issue with a door and architrave. She said that she had suffered distress and time taken.
8. On 10 March 2023, the resident chased a stage 2 complaint response. The landlord acknowledged this on 17 March 2023, advising that it would reply within 20 working days.
9. On 30 May 2023, the landlord provided its stage 2 complaint response. It upheld the resident’s complaint. It said that it should have completed all repairs within agreed timescales. As a resolution, it would complete all outstanding works by 2 June 2023. It would agree compensation in line with its policy and compensation scales. It apologised for the distress and inconvenience caused.
10. On 31 May 2023, the contractor emailed the landlord saying that the resident agreed compensation of £400. It said that it would professionally clean her shoes. The landlord carried out further works and the outstanding repair issues were rectified on 10 July 2023.
11. When the resident brought her complaint to this Service, she said she remained unhappy with the landlord’s handling of the kitchen and bathroom replacement. She said that she had been without cooking facilities for 3 weeks, the landlord had caused damage to her property, the repairs left a hole in her carpet, work that was supposed to take 3 weeks lasted 6 months which caused distress. As a resolution to the complaint, she wanted compensation to replace her carpet and compensation for the distress caused.
12. After the complaint was brought to this Service there is evidence that the resident pursued compensation with the landlord. The landlord registered a subsequent complaint and made an offer of compensation of £172.35 on 27 November 2023, based on 10% of the resident’s rent for 13 weeks, and agreed to replace the resident’s carpets on 5 January 2024.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s handling of works to upgrade the resident’s kitchen and bathroom.

13. It is not disputed that there were failings with the landlord’s handling of the improvement works. In its stage 2 complaint response, the landlord apologised to the resident for distress and inconvenience caused, noting that works were not complete within agreed dates. As a resolution it agreed to the works and provide the resident with compensation in line with its policies.
14. When a landlord has accepted a failing, it is the role of this Service to consider if redress offered by the landlord put things right and resolved the resident’s complaint satisfactorily. This Service considers whether the landlord’s offer of redress was in line with the Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles: be fair, put things right and learn from outcomes.
15. When a landlord carries out improvement works such as replacing a bathroom and kitchen, it is reasonable to expect that there will be some level of disruption and inconvenience caused to the resident. However, this Service would expect that the landlord put measures in place to minimise the inconvenience through good communication and practical measures where possible.
16. The landlord visited the resident’s property 2 working days after it received the complaint. It agreed that some aspects of the work, including a door were not up to the expected quality and acknowledged failings in its communication with the resident and accepted that there were delays. It asked the contractor to provide the resident with a schedule of works and temporary cooking facilities as soon as possible. It further advised that it was carrying out a review of its processes with the contractor to improve its service delivery. This was an appropriate initial step for the landlord to take to put things right for the resident.
17. In its stage 1 complaint response, the landlord referred to a pre-start meeting with its contractor which set out how the works would take place. The resident said that this meeting did not take place. The landlord failed to respond to this element of the resident’s complaint in its stage 2 complaint response. Nevertheless, in its complaint investigation, the contractor said that the process should have been explained in the design appointment and apologised if it had not clearly explained the process. This was a key communication failing by the landlord. If the resident had been provided with clear information on the process, she could have had a better understanding of what to expect and prepared accordingly.
18. The landlord was unable to provide this Service with repair records. When requested it advised that this information was not made available from its contractor. This is a record keeping failure which has been assessed separately. Because of the lack of repair records, this Service cannot determine how long the electricity was cut off in the kitchen. The landlord did accept there were unreasonable delays in the beginning of the repairs, and based on the evidence that is available it is reasonable to conclude the resident was without cooking facilities for 3 weeks. This would have caused inconvenience and extra cost in paying to eat out and buying takeaway. 
19. The landlord completed initial repairs on 24 February 2023. The resident had escalated her complaint and chased a complaint response on 10 March 2023. She complained that the contractor had not repaired a door and architrave as agreed and the repairs had left a gap between her carpet and the bathroom door. The landlord surveyed the property on 17 April 2023 and noted that the quality of workmanship was poor and made a number of recommendations for its contractors to follow up on. This was an appropriate step for the landlord to take to put things right for the resident. 
20. The landlord completed remedial works on 10 July 2023. Based on the landlord’s survey, the outstanding remedial works were due to poor workmanship. The surveyor’s recommendations are for refitting of doors and units, decoration, and sealing. There is no complaint from the resident that she was unable to use the facilities. While the records are not clear, the landlord’s correspondence with the resident and its contractors indicate further distress and inconvenience caused to the resident through multiple attendances to the property and missed appointments. While it is accepted that there will be delays beyond the landlord’s control, it is evident that the landlord’s communication with the resident throughout this period was poor and caused distress and inconvenience to the resident.
21. This Service finds that there was maladministration with the landlord’s handling of works to upgrade the resident’s kitchen and bathroom. The landlord’s communication with the resident before the works began was poor. It failed to demonstrate that it put measures in place to minimise the inconvenience caused during the initial works. The landlord went someway to put things right with the resident by surveying the property, accepting repair failings, and completing remedial repairs. However, it is evident that there were delays and communication failings with the resident throughout the period of remedial works which caused further distress and inconvenience to the resident.
22. An order of compensation has been made below in line with the Housing Ombudsman Service’s Remedies Guidance to reflect the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident as a result of the identified failings.

Complaint handling

23. The landlord operates a 2-stage complaints policy. At stage 1, the landlord will investigate and respond to the resident within 10 working days. If the resident remains dissatisfied the complaint can be escalated to stage 2. After this it will provide a formal written response within 20 working days. If the resident remains dissatisfied, they can escalate the complaint to the relevant Ombudsman.
24. The landlord’s compensation policy states that “when things go wrong, we aim to put things right as quickly as possible. We will consider an offer of compensation when an apology alone will not suffice, and we recognise the impact the service loss or failure has had on the customer.” It sets out levels of redress it would offer a resident depending on the impact to the resident and the circumstances of the failing. These levels of redress align with the Housing Ombudsman Service’s Guidance on Remedies.
25. At stage 1, the landlord responded appropriately to the complaint. It visited the property and accepted failings and took action to put things right. After the resident escalated her complaint on 21 February 2023, the landlord failed to acknowledge the complaint escalation for 22 working days. After it acknowledged the complaint, it did not provide a stage 2 response for 48 working days. These delays contributed to the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident by the landlord’s handling of the remedial repair works.
26. Failure to adhere to timeframes for responses is a service failure. This Service acknowledges that on occasions there will be circumstances that mean a complaint response cannot be provided by the initial time given by the landlord. This is usually to be expected when complaints are complex and further investigation is required. Therefore, it would be reasonable to expect that a landlord would contact the resident, explain in detail the reasons for the delay, and provide a new timeframe whereby the resident would expect to receive a response. However, the landlord did not provide any updates nor reasoning for why it had exceeded its timeframe.
27. The resident escalated her complaint because she never received a pre-start meeting from the contractor, she was without cooking facilities for 3 weeks, her carpet and shoes were damaged, she had concerns about the contractor’s behaviour, as well as outstanding remedial works. Although the landlord upheld the resident’s complaint, it only addressed the outstanding remedial works in its stage 2 complaint response. The Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code) makes it clear that landlords must address all points raised in the complaint definition when responding to a complaint. The complaint process is an opportunity for the landlord to identify where things went wrong and put it right for the resident. Its failure to acknowledge several complaint issues was inappropriate.
28. The landlord apologised for the undue stress and inconvenience. As a resolution to the complaint, the landlord said it would complete all agreed work and provide compensation in line with its policies. It is not clear why it did not make a compensation offer as part of its complaint response. The complaint procedure should be used as an opportunity for the landlord to identify learnings and put things right for the resident. Having identified that it had caused distress and inconvenience, the landlord should have made an offer of compensation as part of its complaint response. That it did not was a missed opportunity to put things right.
29. The day after the landlord issued its stage 2 complaint response, the contractor emailed the landlord to advise that the resident agreed £400 compensation and for it to professionally clean her shoes. There is no evidence to suggest that the landlord considered making its own offer of compensation at this stage either. It is unclear why it did not. However, given the assurance it had provided during the complaints process, it was inappropriate that it did not explore the matter of compensation further. 
30. As a result, after the complaint was brought to this Service, the resident contacted the landlord for the compensation it agreed to pay as part of its stage 2 complaint response. As above, the landlord treated the contact as a new complaint. It is unclear why the landlord chose to do so. However, in a stage 2 response on 5 January 2024, the landlord offered compensation of £172.35 representing 10% rent of rent paid for 13 weeks, to reflect loss of use, and it offered to replace the resident’s carpet.
31. The offer to replace the carpet was appropriate in the circumstances. It was also reasonable for the landlord to consider loss of use as the basis for its compensation calculation. However, given the failings identified by this investigation, the offer was not proportionate in the circumstances and does not accurately reflect the inconvenience that the resident was caused. We have therefore ordered further compensation aimed at putting things right.
32. The landlord’s decision to consider the resident’s request for compensation as a new complaint effectively brought the same issues through the landlord’s complaint process again. If the landlord had conducted a thorough investigation into the resident’s first complaint, it could have addressed the issue of loss of use and offered to replace her carpet. This failure delayed the compensation offer and caused further inconvenience, time, and trouble to the resident in pursuing the compensation.
33. This Service finds that there was maladministration with the landlord’s complaint handling. This is because it failed to acknowledge and respond to the complaint within appropriate timescales, it failed to acknowledge and respond to several issues raised by the resident, and it unreasonably delayed in offering compensation to the resident when it identified failings in its stage 2 complaint response.
34. An order of compensation has been made below in line with the Housing Ombudsman Service’s Remedies Guidance to reflect the time, trouble, and inconvenience caused to the resident by the landlord’s complaint handling failures identified in this investigation.

Record keeping

35. This investigation was hampered by the landlord’s record keeping. When this Service requested copies of surveys and inspection works by the contractor, the landlord said that this information was not made available from its contractor. The landlord is expected to keep robust records of its repair works. When there is a disagreement in the accounts of the resident and the landlord with regards to the condition of the property, the onus would be on the landlord to provide documentary evidence showing how it satisfied itself that the repair work had been completed to a satisfactory standard. 
36. The repair record keeping failures contributed to the landlord’s failings in the repair and its complaint handling. It was evident from the information available, that the resident was unhappy with the communication provided by the contractors and with the quality of the repair. Although the landlord accepted failings with the repairs, it was not clear when its contractors attended, if appointments were missed, what repairs it completed, dates repairs were completed, or what communications were provided to the resident from the contractor.  
37. This Service finds that there was maladministration with the landlord’s record keeping. Although this Service could determine this case using the information that was available, it is vital that landlords keep clear, accurate and easily accessible records to provide an audit trail. If we investigate a complaint, we will ask for the landlord’s records. If there is disputed evidence and no audit trail, we may not be able to conclude that an action took place or that the landlord followed its own policies and procedures.

Determination

38. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration with the landlord’s handling of works to upgrade the resident’s kitchen and bathroom.
39. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration with the landlord’s complaint handling.
40. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration with the landlord’s record keeping.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

41. Within 4 weeks the landlord is ordered to:
    1. apologise to the resident in person for the failures identified in this report.
    2. pay the resident compensation of £722.35. The landlord should deduct the £172.35 it offered, if already paid. The compensation is broken down as follows: 
       1. £300 for the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident by its failings identified in its handling of works to upgrade the resident’s kitchen and bathroom.
       2. £250 for the time, trouble, and inconvenience caused to the resident by its complaint handling failures.
       3. £172.35 loss of use.
42. In accordance with paragraph 54.g of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, within 8 weeks, the landlord is ordered to :
    1. Carry out a senior management review of its handling of the improvement works to identify what went wrong and what it would do differently. This review should consider the recommendations made in the Ombudsman’s spotlight report on knowledge and information management.
    2. Considering the complaint handling failings identified in this report, conduct a review into its handling of the complaint, and how it can prevent similar failings happening again. The review should consider the complaint handling principles set out in the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code
    3. The outcome of the reviews should be shared with this Service, also within 8 weeks.

Recommendation

43. If it has not already done so, it is recommended that the landlord replace the resident’s carpet, as it offered this as part of a further complaint resolution.