East Devon District Council (202200837)

A blue and grey text

Description automatically generated

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202200837

East Devon District Council

26 September 2023

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

The complaint is about the landlord’s:
1. Handling of reports around staff conduct.
2. Handling of the resident’s reports about the drainage work and external painting.
3. Handling of the resident’s request for a shed.
4. Handling of the right to buy application.
5. Response to subject access request.
6. Complaint handling.

Jurisdiction

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.
Paragraph 42 (k) of the Housing Ombudsman’s scheme says that this service may not consider matters which fall properly within the jurisdiction of another ombudsman, regulator or complaint-handing body.
After carefully considering the evidence, in according with paragraph 42 (k) of the scheme, this service will not consider matters concerning the resident’s right to buy application, including the provision of information to its legal team as this was previously brought to this service as a complaint and then referred to the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman.
The resident also raised concerns that the landlord’s actions in failing to provide information to its legal team delayed her application. This service is also unable to consider this issue as at the time it was brought to the Ombudsman’s attention, the complaint had not exhausted the landlord’s complaints process. As such, the Ombudsman is unable to consider the issue as stated under paragraph 42 (a) of the scheme.
The resident has further raised issues about the landlord’s handling of her subject access request. This matter has been referred to the Information Commissioners Office by the resident and falls outside of the Housing Ombudsman’s jurisdiction as such no determination can be made on the matter in line with paragraph 42 (k) of the Ombudsman’s code.

Background and summary of Events

Background

The resident was a secure tenant in a 1 bedroom bungalow. Her tenancy began in October 2016 and expired in October 2022 after purchasing the property.
The resident has previously brought a complaint to this service about the landlord’s handling of repairs to her property. A determination on this was made in case number 202100382 and her complaint included issues about the installation of a soakaway, painting and drainage works. The Ombudsman made an order for the landlord to provide the resident with a written update about the works and why the installation of a soakaway was not possible.
The landlord’s complaints policy states that it will acknowledge complaints within 5 working days, and it will provide a stage 1 and stage 2 response within 20 working days of acknowledgement, where this is practical but where this is not possible, it would make this known to the resident and provide an indicative timescale for its response.
The landlord’s repairs policy stated that it will repair and maintain the structure and exterior of the building including drains, gutters, outside pipes, and water pipes. The policy states it would complete repairs in a reasonable time and routine repairs would be completed in 28 working days.

Summary of events

In February 2022 the landlord and its contractor spoke about the drainage survey works which were due to take place at the resident’s property. The contractor explained the survey was booked for 25 February 2022, and remedial works to be completed on 28 March 2022. The landlord also attempted to complete the external decoration work but this was stopped by the resident due to the weather.
The resident reported to the landlord on 24 February 2022 that its contractor had contacted her to request a site visit on 23 February 2022. At this visit, she reported informing the contractor she was unavailable for the works due to take place 25 February 2022. She explained to the landlord she had been advised by her solicitor to log another complaint, due to the potential damage already caused to her home by the rainwater pipes issuing water straight into the ground under her home. She explained her complaint was that:
1. She had been told that even at that stage, no proper investigation had been ordered into the potential water damage in the foundations of the semi-detached properties or the possibility of subsidence.
2. She did not know yet if an alternative to a soakaway was going to be instigated.

She had done everything possible to bring the situation to the landlord’s attention and she did this as she believed it to be her responsibility as outlined in her tenancy agreement.

On 1 March 2022, the contractor confirmed with the landlord that the survey had been rebooked with the resident for 8 March 2022. The landlord emailed the resident and said it apologised the previous appointment for the drainage was booked at short notice and this had now been rearranged. It asked her to confirm if the date was convenient. With regards to the ongoing matters she had raised, it stated:
1. There was no evidence of any structural damage, and as such it had no plans to complete any further structural/ intrusive surveys. As the property was going through the right to buy process, she may wish to organise her own survey to satisfy her concerns prior to completing the purchase.
2. The drainage survey had been rescheduled and once completed, it would be reviewed, and the necessary remedial work would be instructed.
On the same day, the resident raised her stage 1 complaint with the landlord. She said she had emailed it the previous week to begin a new complaint and needed to add certain things to her official complaint. She stated her concerns were about:
1. Continued rudeness and lack of respect from its staff.
  1. She said she wrote to the landlord on 25 November 2021 and asked if she could have a shed in her garden. She asked about a large sized shed and heard nothing back.
  2. She then received a letter on 10 February 2022 which gave her permission to build a shed at a maximum measurement of 8×6 feet.
  3. She contacted the landlord on 18 February 2022 to ask if she could build something a bit larger, as her neighbours had been given permission for a summerhouse bigger than the specification she was given. The landlord was then rude in its response, and this was upsetting to her. When she asked why she could not have a larger shed, she was told “that’s what has been decided”. She stated this was not an explanation, but the landlord refused to discuss it and repeated what it had said. She wanted someone to listen to the phone call she made on 18 February 2022.
  4. She stated the landlord’s attitude towards her had distressed her on more than one occasion, and she did not understand what she had done to cause this. She said she was very anxious about it and confused about what was happening.
2. Its staff’s refusal to provide information.
  1. She said she would also like a real explanation as to how and why the decision was made. She wanted to be reassured that it was not a decision based on personal feeling.
3. Delays in responses.
4. Lack of communication.
5. Delays and refusal to investigate or carry out work when reported by her.
  1. Although it was stated as the landlord’s responsibility in the tenancy agreement. This was specifically about the open rainwater pipe issue, that was found and reported to the landlord in October 2020, and the fact she was informed no order was given to investigate the potential of water damage under the property and adjoining house. She explained she felt a property survey was required to investigate the potential of water in the foundations of hers and her neighbour’s property. She said she would also like to know what it intended to do to redirect the rainwater of both properties as they shared foundations.

The resident said she wanted an apology from the landlord for its rudeness and refusal to explain. The following day on 2 March 2022, the landlord confirmed her complaint had been received and it would respond to it within 20 working days.

Following the resident’s complaint, between 2 March 2022 and April 2022, the landlord acknowledged her complaint, investigated and found that the telephone call in question had not been recorded. It chased a copy of the drainage survey once completed, and requested a program and timescale of works to arrange dates with the resident. The contractors spoke to confirm if the landlord had approved the quote provided.
The contractor asked the landlord to check if the works could commence on 28 March 2022. It queried other dates with the subcontractor as the resident had rejected the dates provided. The subcontractor responded on 4 April 2022 and said it could attend for 3 days from 19 April 2022 as it had just received a cancellation.
The resident contacted the landlord on 9 March 2022 and 10 March 2022 and:
1. Said the drainage had nothing to do with the issue with the rainwater pipes channelling water under the back of the building and that there was no soakaway.
2. Asked to be reassured by the landlord that a proper investigation would be done at the back of her property.
3. Stated although it had said there did not appear to be a structural problem, no expert had been to inspect this.
4. Said her house buyer’s survey reported on the issue and she provided a copy to the landlord. She stated she had shown the issue to the landlord’s contractor many times and discussed it at some length with it.
5. The drainage contractor and her next-door neighbour had also seen the open pipes during the site visit. She said she was told there were going to be visits from the drainage company to look at the drains again and to investigate the potential water damage from the downpipes.
6. Explained her tenancy agreement placed responsibility for the structure of the property on the landlord and as she had not purchased the property yet, she was still a resident, paying rent.
The landlord responded to her emails, thanked her, and said it would address the points raised and respond in due course. It said the outstanding external painting would be completed on 10 March 2022 and 11 March 2022 depending on the weather conditions. It also suggested awaiting the finding of the professional survey and then it could update her in terms of its findings and any works which were considered necessary.
The resident emailed the landlord on 24 March 2022 and said she was unhappy with the way it had responded to the Ombudsman’s determination. She explained she had expected that everything would have been resolved by the end of February following the Ombudsman’s report, but it was now coming up to the end of March and she had not been told anything about the drainage report, or about any remedial works that needed to be done. She explained that it had been suggested that as she had applied for a right to buy, she should be the one to get a structural survey completed to find the potential subsidence. She said she was unsure how anyone could say there was no sign of subsidence when to her knowledge, nobody had properly checked. She also raised issues about the landlord’s communication and the delays she faced with her right to buy application.
Between 29 March 2022 and 19 April 2022, the resident emailed the landlord and chased a response to her complaint 7 times. She asked for it to be escalated to stage 2 on 29 March 2022 as she had not received a response at stage 1. She also made attempts to contact its chief executive. The landlord responded to her emails and across its responses, it thanked her for her patience, stated it would try to come back to her on all issues as soon as possible. It also explained to her that she had the incorrect date for its response to her complaint. It apologised for the delays and inconvenience and explained the reason for the delay was due to an exceptionally heavy workload at the time. It told her that the delay was due to waiting to listen to the call recording, and said it was treating her complaint as a priority and would do its best to ensure she received a full response on all matters before the end of the week. The landlord also communicated internally and explained the resident did not want works for the external painting to commence due to the weather forecast for the week and rearranged her appointment for 4 April 2022.
On 12 April 2022 the resident explained to the landlord that the external decorating was not completed on 28 March 2022 as the contractor did not attend until the afternoon. They suggested starting the work week commencing 4 April 2022 due to the weather forecast. She was then told that they could come back every day on the week commencing 4 April 2022, but nobody showed up. She attempted to contact them several times but did not get a response. When she asked the landlord, she was provided the start date of 4 April 2022, but nobody contacted her. The contractor then attended on 11 April 2022 when she was not expecting them and said the work would take 2 or 3 days, but she had previously been told it would take longer. They then did not attend, and she was provided with no information to explain what was happening.
The landlord provided its stage 1 response on 19 April 2022. It apologised to the resident that she felt the need to complain. The landlord:
1. Explained its understanding of the situation and confirmed the advice she was provided about the garden shed was correct and in accordance with procedure.
2. Apologised she felt its member of staff was rude to her on the phone and it was sure this was not their intention. It explained it had hoped to listen to the recording of the call and this was the reason for the late response. However, it had been advised that the call was not actually recorded so it was not available to be listened to.
3. Said in the absence of the evidence, it had highlighted the complaint to the member of staff to ensure that any learning points arising from the matter were taken on board.
4. Stated it could not comment on why she was not allowed the same size shed as her neighbour, but it could assure her that the advice which had been given was correct and was applicable to all of its residents.
5. Provided an explanation on the drainage works scheduled and said according to an email it had sent her on 12 April 2022, it understood that the work was being carried out on the same day as the response.
6. Said it hoped its response answered the points raised in her complaint and it said it was very sorry for the delay in responding.
Following the response, on the same day, the resident emailed the landlord and said she was worried to hear that the reason her complaint had not been resolved was because it was waiting to listen to the telephone conversation, she complained about in March. She stated she had been waiting 7 weeks for the response and asked for an explanation on why and how it has taken so long to respond. The resident said she found it confusing that she had no indication this was what was delaying her complaint and she could not understand how it could possibly have taken this long to listen to. She said, surely, staff rudeness was something the landlord would want to know about and correct. She stated she had been apologised to time and again in response to her complaints and told that she would no longer have to experience the rudeness, delay and lack of communication. She also pointed out that she still had not received answers to questions she had previously repeatedly asked.
The resident responded to the landlord’s stage 1 response on 21 April 2022 and she:
1. Said she had asked the Ombudsman for help as the response was 3 weeks overdue. She stated she was disappointed that some of the things it promised in its response to the Ombudsman had still not happened.
2. Was very concerned that its response to her formal complaint was not adequate. Her complaints were not confined to the things it had responded to, and she had explained them in detail to it. She then reiterated what her complaint was about.
3. Asked why it had taken 7 weeks to discover that the recording of the call was missing.
4. Explained about the shed, she had been informed that there was a like for like rule which meant she could have the same size shed as her neighbours. She had previously been informed by her neighbour that their summer house was given retrospective permission. She asked if someone could clarify the rule for her as she had received no response following her email in 2021 about it.
5. Said the landlord’s staff continuously did not offer adequate information and she kept having to ask for updates which was difficult due to her dyspraxia. She then provided the outcomes she would like:
  1. The rent she had paid since her application for Right to Buy to be paid back to her by subtracting it from the purchase price if she bought the property;
  2. Or for some of the same amount to be returned to her as compensation.
The landlord informed the resident the drainage works were due for completion on 22 April 2022, and it would also be inspected. The resident responded and explained the drainage works could not be completed the week before as the contractor was called away to a large emergency. She said she believed they would be attending on 26 April 2022, but was unsure why she was being provided with the date at such short notice and without checking it was convenient with her. She said she had previously explained to the landlord that she did not check her emails daily and believed a telephone call would have been friendlier to confirm the date was convenient. She asked for the landlord to confirm if her complaint had been escalated to stage 2 as she did not receive any confirmation. She said its response at stage 1 was three weeks late and incomplete and believed had it arrived on time, she would be close to the completion of her stage 2. She expressed a preference to go directly to the Ombudsman.
The landlord responded the following day on 26 April 2022. It confirmed that the resident’s complaint was logged at stage 2 of its complaint’s procedure on the basis of a delayed response at stage 1, and her suggestion that the response was incomplete. She contacted the landlord the following day raising issues about its painting contractor, her right to buy complaint, and that the landlord had not addressed her belief of “ill will” by its staff towards her in its response. She asked the landlord to clarify what it would be responding to at stage 2 and said her complaint included everything she made it aware of at stage 1. She expressed concern that although she had to wait 3 weeks over the deadline for her stage 1 response, not everything was covered and asked when she could expect a response.
The landlord provided a stage 2 acknowledgement on 4 May 2022 and explained her complaint was logged on 26 April 2022. On the same day, she chased a response to her email of 27 March 2022 and said if her whole complaint would not be completed, she needed to know so she could raise a new complaint. She queried in a separate email if it had received her email of 24 March 2022. The following day, the landlord set out its current position and asked her to set out any outstanding issues she felt had not been addressed. It said it had complied with the Ombudsman’s previous orders.
The landlord provided its stage 2 response on 26 May 2022 and explained it focused on the following; rudeness of staff in communication, her concerns regarding the drainage work/ survey, the way her request to erect a shed was dealt with, and her concern of bias by the landlord in its communication with her. It stated all other matters had been addressed separately in another email and further formal complaint. It:
1. Explained that it had read the stage 1 response and understood that a wait for the call recording led to a delay and that it transpired that the call was not recorded. It acknowledged the delay would have been very frustrating for the resident and it echoed her frustration.
2. Stated the drainage survey work had been completed and work inspected and so was the exterior decorating work and no further work considered necessary.
3. That it had previously explained its position and compliance with the Ombudsman’s recommendations following her previous complaint.
4. Said it was concerned that she believed its staff were biased against her in their communications with her and this was not something it would expect from them.
5. Stated if she was able to provide specific examples of where she felt this was the case, it would consider them and take whatever action was appropriate. Without specific evidence, it would not be able to address the issue.
6. Said it appreciated that this may be more of a general feeling that she had, and it apologised if this had been distressing for her.
7. Said it could absolutely assure her that its staff would not seek to treat her differently on the basis that she had previously made complaints. It stated it could not see what they would gain from doing so and it trusted that its staff were able to deal with all of its customers in a professional and courteous way. However, if she had examples of specific occasions where she thought she had been treated in some way differently, it should let her know.
The resident responded to the landlord’s stage 2 response on the same day and stated she was very disappointed by its reply to the complaint. She stated she was just as confused about its complaints process and there appeared to be no neutrality, nor any real evidence of the kind of investigation she expected. She stated:
1. It appeared to believe a staff member’s word against a customers, and this was odd to her. It was also odd that she waited nearly 8 weeks instead of the 4-week deadline without an apology at the time, explanation of why she had to wait and no information about when she could expect the response.
2. All her complaints were about its lack of responses, very long delays and extremely poor communication which continued. Its member of staff had stopped acknowledging her emails.
3. She was left wondering if the Ombudsman’s recommendations had been complied with as it was not what she had experienced. She queried why it had taken so long for things to be completed. She stated that it said the drainage work had been completed, yet she was still waiting for the concrete to be finished.
4. She was told she could have a copy of the report on completion of the work, but she did not see any other report. She had also asked for a final inspection of the drainage to see if it worked and believed this to be a reasonable request. She asked the surveyor to do this during its inspection, but they pointed out that they had no tools to lift the drain cover.
5. They only observed it on a surface level to see if it was working. She also had to remind them about the concreting that was still outstanding. She had left a message on the contractor’s phone the previous week and she was then sent a text message by the contractor stating it was visiting in June. She had no idea if the text message was related to her phone call, so she had to presume so.
6. With regards to its staff being biased towards her, this was not a feeling. It was evidenced by the continual delays, continued refusal to keep her informed, repeated and continued dismissive attitudes of staff and some of its complaints team only answering questions they chose to and not keeping her properly informed. This meant she was having to repeatedly ask for basic information, resulting in a difficult working relationship.
7. There was continual pressure put on her to somehow prove that what she was saying was true and then it would understand her frustration. She then asked the landlord to open a new complaint about:
  1. The landlord’s complaint’s procedure.
  2. The redacted format in which she received her subject access data, and the way her and events that had occurred, had been spoken about by staff.
  3. How she did not feel able to ask about a member of the landlord’s staffs work because they were related to the officer in charge of her complaints.
The resident contacted the Ombudsman 6 times between 13 April 2022 and 8 June 2022, raising numerous issues about the landlord. She stated it had not carried out its responsibilities or promises in the Ombudsman’s previous determination. She explained she had complained to the landlord and was provided with a deadline which it did not meet. She explained the situation had been ongoing for two years. The landlord also explained to the resident that it had believed its call recording facility was activated but it had not at the time of her complaint.

Assessment and findings

Scope of Investigation

The resident has made mention about the installation of a soakaway and a leak under the property. A determination was previously made about these issues in 202100382, as such, the Ombudsman will not be making any findings on them as part of this investigation. Although a determination was made about the external painting also in 202100382, the resident raised fresh complaints about the works in her complaint, and as such, this has been considered as part of this investigation.
The resident has also brought a complaint about the drainage survey. The Ombudsman is aware that the drainage survey had previously been considered in a previous determination. An order was made by this service for the landlord to provide the resident with the survey findings and an explanation on its actions or intentions based on the survey. The landlord wrote to the resident on 24 February 2022 and explained its intentions with completing the survey and actions it aimed to take once the survey was completed. This was deemed as acceptable compliance. The resident raised issues about the delays in completing the survey and it was then completed on 8 March 2022. This investigation will not focus on the landlord’s compliance with the order but instead, its actions in completing the required works.

Staff conduct.

It is not the Ombudsman’s role to determine whether the landlord took appropriate action in response to the outcome of its investigation against a member of staff regarding the resident’s concerns about its staffs conduct towards her. That would be an employment issue outside of the Ombudsman’s remit. However, the Ombudsman can consider whether the landlord appropriately investigated the concerns raised.
In the Ombudsman’s opinion, it was positive of the landlord to attempt to reassure the resident that bias was not something it expected from its staff and that its staff would not treat her differently because she had raised complaints.
In response to her concerns, the landlord requested evidence and instances where she felt there had been bias and explained why this was required. It told her it would then investigate and take whatever action was necessary and appropriate. In the Ombudsman’s opinion, the landlord’s actions were reasonable. Without evidence, it would be difficult for the landlord to determine where to focus its investigations. It showed a willingness to address the issue if the resident provided it with evidence.
Following the resident’s report of rudeness from its member of staff, the landlord looked to investigate her concerns and apologised to the resident. It looked to review all evidence that it could, including recordings and file notes and acted fairly towards the resident. The landlord however was unable to obtain a copy of the call recording as it was not recorded. It had previously, told the resident and the Ombudsman on 24 February 2022 that “with immediate effect” it would be introducing call recordings for all repairs staff to go along side file notes. The landlord explained its recording facility had not been set up at the time of her complaint. However, from the evidence provided it is unclear which department handled the telephone call, and if there was an obligation for it to be recorded. As such the Ombudsman is unable to determine if there was an obligation on the landlord to record the call.
It took the landlord 7 weeks to explain to the resident that it had been looking for the recording and could not find it. In the Ombudsman’s opinion, this was unreasonable. The landlord should have been transparent with the resident much earlier than it was in explaining its inability to locate the recording. The lack of a recording also meant that the landlord was unable to make a conclusive decision about its staff members actions. This caused the resident frustration and led to her believing it had taken its staff members word over her own.
Although the landlord was unable to listen to the recording, it attempted to reassure the resident that its member of staff would not have intended to be rude to her and acknowledged her feelings. In the Ombudsman’s opinion, this was positive of the landlord and shows it understood her feelings. It was also appropriate that it informed the member of staff about the complaint to facilitate a learning experience for them.
In summary, the Ombudsman can consider how the landlord treated the resident. It asked her to provide evidence and instances of bias and it would investigate which was reasonable. There were failings in its investigation of her claims of rudeness. The landlord tried to review all the evidence it could to reach an informed decision about her reports of rudeness from it staff. It could not as it did not have a recording of the call. It failed to explain the failure to record the call to the resident in a timely manner and left her waiting 7 weeks. It had made an undertaking to record calls to its repairs team, however it is unclear which department dealt with the telephone call and if it was obliged to record it. It was however positive that the landlord attempted to reassure her that its staff would not intend to be rude to her and that it acknowledged her feelings. It also pointed out the complaint to the staff member to facilitate learning for them. However, due to the failings, the Ombudsman finds that there was service failure.

Handling of the resident’s reports about the drainage work and external painting.

Drainage works.

Although the works to the drainage was completed outside of the 28 working day timeline within the landlord’s repairs policy, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, this was reasonable. This was because there were circumstances outside of both the resident and the landlord’s control. These were things such as the resident’s availability, which meant there was a need to rearrange appointments and the contractor being called away due to emergencies. These contributed to the delay and led to the works being completed in May 2022.
The landlord’s contractor arranged for works to be completed at the resident’s property on 25 February 2022 and booked it without first consulting with her. The resident reported a second instance where she was again provided with a short notice appointment to complete the outstanding remedial works in April 2022, following the completion of the survey. In the Ombudsman’s opinion, this is unreasonable especially given that the resident had previously raised an issue around this earlier on in the process. It would have been customer focused for it to have spoken to the resident in both instances and identified dates to avoid, prior to booking any of the works. The failure to do so shows poor communication by the landlord. This caused her frustration and led to her taking the time to raise the issues with the landlord on both occasions.
Further, this service would have expected the landlord to explain to the contractor, following the first issue, that the resident had requested she was not provided with short notice appointments, and ensured this was adhered to. No evidence has been provided to show that the landlord raised or discussed this with the contractor to ensure it did not occur again in the future. The landlord could also have enquired how much notice the resident required prior to any appointments being booked.
Although the landlord chased timescales and said it would update the resident with information on any works considered necessary, it has provided no evidence to this service that it provided her with the timescales or explained to her about its plans about the identified works. In the Ombudsman’s opinion, this was unreasonable. Following the survey, it would have been best practice for the landlord to explain the findings and the proposed works it looked to carry out to address the issue she had raised.
Following the completion of the works, the resident explained that the contractor did not check to ensure that its fixes to direct the water away were working and complete a surface level check. In the Ombudsman’s opinion, it would have been appropriate for the landlord to have completed a post works inspection to ensure that the remedies it had put in place were operating the way they should be and provide the resident with a level of assurance.

External painting

Following the Ombudsman’s previous determination, the evidence shows that the landlord attempted to complete the works, however, due to circumstances outside of its control such as the weather, the works could not be completed on 2 separate occasions.
Despite this however, there was poor communication as the resident was left chasing updates on when the works were supposed to begin. After being informed the works would take place on week commencing 4 April 2022, and nobody turning up, she was left with no information on why the works did not commence during this week. In the Ombudsman’s opinion, this is unacceptable. The landlord should have been monitoring its contractors to ensure that the works were taking place to schedule, and if they were not going to take place, the resident should have been provided with an update.
Following this, the contractors then turned up to her property unannounced the following week and told her the work would take a shorter amount of time than previously provided. In the Ombudsman’s opinion, the fact that the contractor did not attend her property when they were meant to and provided the resident with a different timescale for the completion of the works, raised questions about the landlord’s contractor arrangements. Further to this, she had also previously raised issues about short notice appointments with the drainage works, so a contractor turning up to her home unannounced would have caused her further frustration with the landlord.
In summary, due to circumstances outside of the contractors and resident’s control, it was reasonable that the works were completed outside of the timeframe in the landlord’s repairs policy. The landlord’s contractors booked in works on two occasions without first consulting if the dates were convenient with the resident and provided her with short notice appointments, after her requests for more notice, demonstrating poor communication. It would have been reasonable for the landlord to enquire how much notice the resident required prior to appointments. It failed to provide the resident with timescales and updates for the completion of works it considered necessary and did not arrange for post inspection works to ensure the remedies it did put in place were functioning to an acceptable level. With regards to the exterior decorating, although there were circumstances outside of its control, its communication with the resident was poor as it failed to update her about when the works were due to begin, and this saw her seeking updates. She was told the works would commence on one date, but they then commenced the following week, without explanation or notice. Based on this, the Ombudsman finds there was maladministration to this element of the complaint.

Handling of the resident’s request for a shed.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s request remained outstanding for 52 working days. In the Ombudsman’s opinion, the delay in communicating its decision with the resident was unreasonable and caused her frustration.
When the landlord did respond to the resident, it failed to provide an explanation on why she was restricted to the size it had provided. In the Ombudsman’s opinion, the landlord should have explained the reason for the size it provided was due to “regulations” as it said internally. This amounts to a failure to appropriately communicate with her and added to her perception of an unwillingness to provide her with information. This also led to her chasing the landlord for an explanation.
When the resident contacted the landlord to request if she could build a bigger shed, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, it would have been reasonable for it to have provided her with more information on why it had given the dimensions that it did. The landlord could have explained to her as it did internally, that the dimensions were set within a regulation which it had to follow. This was a missed opportunity to resolve the issue at an earlier point and avoid it escalating to a complaint. The failure to communicate this explanation to the resident, led to frustration, distress, and added to her concerns of bias against her. It also added to her perception that the landlord was refusing to provide her with information.
In summary, there were delays in the landlord’s response to the resident’s request. When it did respond to her, it should have explained to her why she was permitted a shed at the dimensions provided. It also missed an opportunity to address this during the telephone call. Its failure to properly communicate a reason for the decision escalated the situation. Based on this, the Ombudsman finds there was service failure.

Complaint handling.

The landlord’s complaints policy at the time of the resident’s complaint was not compliant with the Ombudsman’s code as it provides a 20 day time frame for the provision of stage 1 complaints, 10-days more than provided by the code. The landlord’s website states the policy was published on 11 December 2013 and due to be reviewed by 31 December 2022, however, there does not appear to be an update on the site. A recommendation has been made for the landlord to review its complaint’s policy in line with the Ombudsman’s complaint handling code.
The landlord provided its stage 1 response, 13 working days outside of its policy and 23 working days outside of the timeframe within the Ombudsman’s code. In the Ombudsman’s opinion, this was unreasonable. This caused the resident frustration and saw her taking the time to chasing a response to her complaint 7 times with the landlord. This service understands that the landlord was looking to find the recording of the telephone call which led to her complaint, and apologised for the delay, however, it should have been transparent with the resident and explained earlier in the process that this was what was causing the delay.
In its stage 1 response, the landlord provided inaccurate information. It said the resident had made the request for a shed in February 2022 when she did so, in November 2021. In the Ombudsman’s opinion, this shows poor investigation into the resident’s complaint.
During the resident’s emails chasing her complaint response, the landlord could have used this as an opportunity to request an extension on the provision of its reply, set a further timeframe, and managed her expectations.
The landlord’s stage 1 response also failed to consider all the issues raised by the resident in her complaint and only considered two of them. In the Ombudsman’s opinion, this was unacceptable. The landlord missed an opportunity to potentially resolve some of the issues at an earlier stage in the process. For example, it could have requested the specific examples of bias prior to its stage 1 response and then addressed the issues in its responses. This caused an unnecessary delay in the complaint handling process and led to frustration and distress for the resident.
The resident asked for her complaint to be escalated following the lateness of the stage 1 response. She then had to make a second request for it to be escalated and chase a response to confirm that it had. It took the landlord 19 working days to confirm to her that her complaint had been escalated from her original request. In the Ombudsman’s opinion, this was unreasonable and left the resident frustrated as she had to chase and question the landlord for an answer on where her complaint was following her escalation.
The landlord provided its stage 2 response 40 working days after the resident’s original escalation. This is 20 working days later than provided within the Ombudsman’s code, and also the timeframe prescribed within its policy. There is no evidence provided that it informed the resident of the delays or asked for an extension from her to support the lateness. In the Ombudsman’s opinion, this was unreasonable and would have added to her frustration with the landlord.
In summary, the timeframes provided in the landlord’s complaints policy are not compliant with the Ombudsman’s complaint handling code. The landlord provided both its stage 1 and 2 responses outside of the timeframes within the code and its policy. The resident was left chasing her complaint responses, and confirmation that her complaint had been escalated. It failed to ask her for extensions, a reason for the delay until she continued to chase or provide her with updates proactively. This shows poor communication by the landlord. It provided in accurate information in its stage 1 response and failed to address all of the issues raised by the resident at stage 1. It also did not provide her with a response on the “shed rule”. Based on this, the Ombudsman finds that there was maladminstration by the landlord.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 42 of the Housing Ombudsman’s scheme, the following issues are deemed as outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction:
1. Handling of the right to buy application.
2. Response to subject access request.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman’s scheme, there was:
1. Service failure by the landlord in its handling of reports around staff conduct.
2. Maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s reports about the drainage work and external decorating.
3. Service failure by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s request for a shed.
4. Maladministration by the landlord in its Complaint handling.

Reasons

Although the landlord acted appropriately in looking to investigate the reported rudeness of its member of staff, it was not transparent with the resident. It delayed in updating her that the call was not recorded. It took it seven weeks to identify that it had not recorded the call.
There were failings by the landlord and its contractor in communicating with the resident about booking her appointments. On two occasions, she was provided with appointments for works to commence at short notice. It did not on some occasions check that the dates it provided for appointments were suitable for the resident. There is also no evidence provided that the landlord addressed this with its contractors. She was also left chasing updates on when works were supposed to begin around the external painting. It was explained to her that works on the painting was due to begin on one date, but then started on another, and she was provided with no explanation on why this was.
The landlord’s response to the resident’s request for a shed remained outstanding for an unreasonable amount of time. It also could have done more to provide the resident with an explanation about why she could only have a shed at the dimensions it had provided.
The landlord’s complaints policy provides timeframes for response to a stage 1 complaint outside of the Ombudsman’s code. There were delays in the response to the resident’s stage 1 and 2 complaints. There was also delay in its escalation of the resident’s stage 2 complaint. With all the delays, there is no evidence that the landlord requested extensions from the resident to provide its responses late and she was left chasing the landlord. There was also no evidence provided that it explained why it delayed in confirming the escalation of her complaint.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

Within four weeks of this report the landlord must:
1. Provide the resident with a written apology.
2. Pay the resident compensation of £825 consisting of:
  1. £100 due to its failings around staff conduct.
  2. £375 for its communication failings around its handling of the drainage works and external decorating.
  3. £100 for its failings around the resident’s request for a shed.
  4. £250 for the delays, in handling the resident’s complaint.
3. Provide evidence of compliance with these orders.

Recommendation

The landlord should:
1. Review its complaint handling timeframes against the Ombudsman’s code and ensure its complaint handling policy is in line with the code.
2. Consider including times frames for responses to correspondence to manage residents expectations.