Great Yarmouth Borough Council (202201561)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202201561

Great Yarmouth Borough Council

28 June 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

1. The resident’s complaint is about the landlord’s handling of a number of works to the property. The landlord’s complaint handling and record keeping has also been considered.

Background and summary of events

2. The property is a three bedroom semi-detached house built in 1925. A secure joint tenancy was assigned to the residents on 10 March 2011. The Ombudsman notes that there is both a male and female resident at the property, both of whom communicated with the landlord during the course of the matter. The complaint was brought to this service by the female resident and for ease of reference all communications are referred to as being by this resident.
3. On 21 February 2021 the resident emailed the landlord with a complaint. She said that the previous year had been “horrific” for her family as there were “long periods of disrespect and unfair treatment”. She complained that the property was treated as an “unoccupied building site”. She stated that on “numerous occasions” she had heard the contractors referring to residents as “just council tenants”. She stated that the contractors left litter and caused tension between residents. She set out that the replacement of the windows had been mishandled, noting that her neighbour had an ongoing dispute regarding the replacement of windows by the contractors being undertaken at the same time. She described a number of problems with the works done, including the back door not fitting properly. She described how disruptive the works were, particularly when she was undergoing major surgery. She noted that the external works, while appearing to have been done well, had caused cracks in the ceilings and walls. She set out an extensive list of outstanding works. The resident asked the landlord to call her.
4. The resident resent her complaint to the landlord on 26 February 2021, noting that it had not responded to her. The landlord responded that day, stating that it had received her complaint and would reply within ten days.
5. On 10 March 2021 the landlord responded to the resident’s email. It stated that it was “sorry and disappointed” with the experience which the resident had with the contractors. It stated that it would be following up with the contractors “as none of the issues that you experienced are acceptable”. It said that it would “ensure we find a way to resolve the areas you have highlighted and leave you with the house you anticipated at the start of this project”. It set out a number of works that it would seek an update on.
6. The landlord provided what it submits was a stage one complaint response on 11 March 2021. It confirmed a number of works to be done that had been discussed with the resident in a call that day. It stated that it aimed to complete the works by 9 April and to minimise disruption. It acknowledged the resident’s concerns about damp and mould since the works and that this was significantly greater than that being experienced by neighbours. It said that it would request a survey to review this and inspect the crack in the bathroom ceiling. It said that it could “only apologise again” and assure the resident that it wanted to resolve the issues “as quickly as possible”. It confirmed that it had discussed the issues with the contractors “to ensure these experiences are not repeated”.
7. The resident contacted the landlord on 7 November 2021 requesting the matter be escalated to stage two of the complaints procedure. She said that she had spent months chasing up works that were not finished.  She said that after the first complaint response a contractor visited the property and said that they would be in touch to start works but no one contacted her. She followed up and was advised that the contractor could not be booked and another contractor was needed. Works were done in June, however some of the works were a poor quality. Replacement doors were planned and the resident took time off work, however the new doors were the wrong size and the old doors had to be refitted. At the beginning of September the contractors had to measure the doors again as they had lost the measurements. The doors were finally fitted on 25 October 2021 but the resident advised that the front door was “leaking badly”. The resident noted that she contacted the contractor but had not had a response. The cracks in the upstairs ceiling had not been addressed at all and plaster was falling onto her son’s bed. Her son was sleeping on the floor as she did not feel that the bed was safe. She was still waiting for the outside tap to be reinstalled.
8. She noted that the whole process had cost her financially – she had to redecorate and the heating had been on more due to the ill fitting doors. Leaks were damaging the laminate which would need replacing. The matter had had a significant emotional impact and she reiterated that the contractors had interacted with her in a distressing manner.
9. A stage two complaint response was provided on 1 December 2021. The landlord found that the resident’s complaint was justified. The Ombudsman has not been provided with the findings which were attached to this complaint response.
10. On 25 January 2022 the resident escalated the complaint to stage three of the landlord’s complaints procedure. She set out an extensive number of works that had not been completed as promised. She noted that the same contractors who had originally mishandled the works and behaved inappropriately were used again. She reiterated the significant detrimental distress and inconvenience the matter had caused and the financial costs.
11. The landlord completed a stage three complaint investigation on 22 February 2022. The landlord noted that the resident’s complaint was upheld at stage one and found that this result was corroborated at stage three. It said that rather than “re-run” the previous investigations it had prepared a Work Rectification Plan to complete all works outstanding from the original complaint and additional works that had arisen since. This plan included new contractors being appointed to attend to the inferior work done by the previous contractors and some outstanding home improvements. It apologised to the resident. It set out a list of the works to be done with timescales and closed the case on the basis of the works being completed in accordance with the plan.
12. On 6 April 2022 the landlord wrote to the resident confirming a number of works to be done on the property, starting when the resident returned from holiday on 11 April 2022.
13. On 13 April 2022 there were internal communications by the landlord to progress the outstanding works. The works were being undertaken by two different contractors, including the original contractor with whose behaviour the resident was unhappy.
14. On 23 April 2022 the resident advised this service that there were still works outstanding. She submitted that her “home and private lives have been violated” and there had been an emotional and financial cost.
15. On 9 May 2022 the landlord noted internally that orders for the doors had not been placed. It said that it would do so “as swiftly as possible” and there was a lead time of 4-5 weeks.
16. The landlord sent the resident the recommendations for the structural engineer on 25 May 2022 to undertake works to the beam in the rear bedroom. The structural engineer recommended that the cladding to the beam be removed to examine for insulation and reinstate with insulation. The landlord stated that additional insulation had been added to the beam and it was reluctant to touch the boxing in. It said that the cracks in the bathroom had been repaired and if it returned a structural engineer would assess. It also noted that the structural engineer had approved an additional prop in the loft.
17. On 31 May 2022 a contractor emailed the landlord stating that it was “almost complete” at the property.
18. On 20 June 2022 the landlord’s surveyor wrote an email about his visit to the property that day. He noted that “there was not an item the tenant was happy with”. He said that the visit ended when he (the surveyor) said that he would accept a “tiny crack”. He said that the resident was “irate” and said he would be making a complaint. The surveyor said that he “would also like to make a complaint regarding [the resident’s] attitude towards me”.
19. A surveyor for the landlord attended on 22 June 2022. This was followed up by an internal email on 27 June 2022 setting out a number of works that needed to be done. In this email it referred to the resident being told that the plastering was “to council standard”. The surveyor noted that the plaster work was not up to standard. In a reply on that date the relevant landlord representative stated “I never ever mentioned ‘council standards’”.
20. On 29 June 2022 an internal email was sent to arrange a different fan for the bathroom.
21. On 1 July 2022 the landlord confirmed internally that the new doors were to be “installed in two to three weeks”. It also noted that there were works needed to windows. An internal email noted that the kitchen plaster was “not up to standard” and needed to be redone.
22. On 8 August 2022 a note recorded that the resident had advised the landlord that she “did not want any further works at the moment”.
23. Between 26 August 2022 and 12 September 2022 there were a number of internal landlord communications about the status of an order to replace the doors by the original contractors. The doors were completed on 12 September 2022.
24. On 22 September 2022 the surveyor who had attended the property sent an internal email setting out a number of issues that had been raised by the resident. He noted that it was well over a year since he had visited the property and he was “not entirely sure how things have progressed (or not) since then”. He stated that “various surveyors and contractors have now attended but there is always something left to be done or something that appears that the tenants are not happy with”. This email was sent to someone initially involved who had now changed roles in the organisation.
25. It was not sent to the correct person until 24 October 2022, noting that the resident had contacted the landlord and some of the issues “were still live (italics original)”. The email noted a number of issues with the property.
26. The landlord sent the resident a letter on 21 December 2022 confirming discussions it had when attended the property. It apologised for the delay in sending the document. It confirmed that it had looked at the crack above the bath and its view was that the condition of the plasterboard ceiling was “almost perfect” and there was “no chance” of the ceiling falling down. It also said that it had looked at the “very small cracks” in the plasterboard boxing above the resident’s son’s bed and confirmed its view that there was “no chance” of the plasterboard falling down and injuring him.
27. The window repairs were completed on 18 January 2023.
28. On 18 June 2023 the resident updated this service that they were “still pretty much in the same position and new problems have arisen from the poor work carried out previously”. She also noted that the allocated contact at the landlord had moved jobs and there was no point of contact “once again”. She advised that she had received communications that certain works would be done but they had not. 

Assessment and findings

Works to the property

29. The crux of the issue in dispute is the landlord’s handling of a number of repairs to the property. The resident’s complaint is that the repairs have been done poorly (or not at all), the matter has been going on for too long and there was inappropriate behaviour by some of the contractors.
30. The landlord has provided limited records on the nature of the works – its record keeping failings are considered below. It appears that the works were extensive, including new windows and doors and external works. There were some works which only needed to be done because of the impact of other works. The resident first complained in February 2021, at which point the matter appears to have been going on for a year. The window repairs were completed in January 2023 and the resident has advised this service that as of June 2023 there are still outstanding matters.
31. This is clearly an unreasonable timeframe. The landlord has acknowledged at each stage of the three stage complaint process that there have been failings. However, this has not led to the matter being resolved.
32. In its stage three complaint response of 22 February 2022 the landlord set out an extensive “Rectification Plan”. However, it appears that not all of these works have been completed. In the absence of detailed records it is difficult to state with certainty which works have been done and which have not. The lack of records indicates that the landlord has failed to comprehensively follow up and monitor the works to completion.
33. In its submissions to this service the landlord has stated that “there were many instances where the tenants were unhappy with works being carried out and requested further works which delayed completion”. The implication of this is that delays were due, at least in part, to the resident.
34. The Ombudsman acknowledges that there may be reasonable reasons why the landlord has not undertaken some of the works. For example, there is evidence of a letter from the landlord dated 21 December 2022 following a visit by to the property. This set out the landlord’s view that there was no risk of the ceiling coming down in the bathroom or the resident’s son’s bedroom. The evidence indicates that the landlord took reasonable steps to review and address the resident’s concerns about cracks in the bathroom and bedroom ceiling and its conclusions were reasonable. The Ombudsman notes that the resident raised these issues on numerous occasions at an earlier stage and, whilst the landlord’s investigation was ultimately reasonable, its delays to undertake the investigations was unreasonable.
35. The evidence does not indicate that the landlord has undertaken a full and comprehensive survey of the property to confirm that all outstanding items have been satisfactorily completed and to take reasonable steps to address any outstanding concerns the resident may have. The evidence indicates that many of the works delayed were clearly not due in any way to the tenant being unreasonable – for example, the windows not being completed until 18 January 2023. Given the evidence before us, the Ombudsman is not persuaded that the resident contributed substantially to the delays.
36. A core issue appears to be that no–one has taken ownership to progress the matter. In September 2022 a surveyor sent an internal email seeking to establish the status of the matter. He did not realise until late October 2022 that the person he had sent it to had moved on in the organisation and was no longer responsible for the works. The resident has also advised that the allocated contact at the landlord had moved on and there was no longer a named contact. The communications with the resident have been sporadic and the majority have failed to comprehensively address all the works and issues raised by her.
37. The Ombudsman finds that the landlord has failed to take reasonable steps to ensure that all repair works have been completed to the required standard within a reasonable timeframe. The landlord has failed to establish a clear structure of internal ownership which has meant that the matter has not been effectively progressed. The landlord has also failed to communicate in an effective way with the resident which would have ensured that she understood the extent and nature of works it intended to carry out and effectively managed expectations around the programme of works.
38. The resident has also complained about the behaviour of contractors who undertook the work, particularly in the initial stages. The landlord has stated that it initiated an investigation into misconduct by a supervisor working for the contractor, however “during this time, the supervisor left the company which made it impossible to complete a robust investigation”. However, it then also stated that “there was no evidence …. that the supervisor was rude”. It has stated that window fitters working for the contractor were dismissed for misconduct. It has provided evidence of another contractor refuting that he had said that the plaster work (which was found to be inadequate) was “of council standard”.
39. The resident has stated on several occasions that the contractors’ behaviour has had a significant detrimental impact, noting that for some of the period the works were ongoing the resident was going through a significant medical treatment. Given that some of the workers were dismissed for misconduct, it is clear that there was some significant inappropriate behaviour by the contractors – although the extent that this behaviour involved the resident is unclear.
40. In its communication with the resident on 10 March 2021 the landlord stated that it would follow up the issues raised by the resident about the contractors behaviour. Given some workers were dismissed, the Ombudsman is satisfied that there was some follow up by the landlord. However, the Ombudsman is not satisfied that the landlord took reasonable steps to address the issue with the resident. There is no evidence that the landlord communicated to the resident about how the issue was investigated and resolved. The landlord then used the same contractors to undertake further works, despite the resident indicating that she was uncomfortable with this. Whilst the landlord apologised in some communications, it failed to fully acknowledge the impact on the resident or provide appropriate compensation.
41. Therefore, and taken altogether, the Ombudsman finds that there has been severe maladministration by the landlord with respect to its handling of a number of works to the property.

Records keeping and complaint handling

42. The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s complaint handling and record keeping.
43. As set out above, the landlord has provided limited records. Particularly given the extensive nature of the works and the length of time the complaint has been ongoing, the Ombudsman would expect significantly more records. Such records are necessary to support effective complaints handling and dispute resolution. Further, as set out above, the lack of records indicates that the landlord has failed to comprehensively follow up and monitor the works to completion. The Ombudsman finds that there has been maladministration by the landlord with respect to its record keeping.
44. The Ombudsman also considers there were failings by the landlord in its complaint handling. There was a relatively minor failing where the landlord failed to acknowledge the resident’s request for a call when it acknowledged her stage one complaint on 26 February 2021. The acknowledgement itself was unreasonably delayed – the resident having sent her complaint email on 21 February 2021.
45. More significantly, the landlord failed to properly address and resolve the issues through the complaints process. While in its final complaint response it set out a detailed programme of works with timescales, it failed to follow up to ensure the work was undertaken and the matter finished. In the evidence which the Ombudsman has been provided with, the landlord failed to acknowledge and substantively respond to the resident’s distress about the behaviour of the contractors. It is also not clear why the landlord, having acknowledged that there were failings in its handling of the matter, failed to offer the resident compensation, in recognition of the significant distress and inconvenience caused by its cumulative failings in this case. By not doing so, it failed to take adequate steps to put matters right for the resident.
46. The Ombudsman finds that there has been maladministration by the landlord with respect to its complaints handling.

Determination (decision)

47. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there has been severe maladministration by the landlord with respect to its handling of works to the property.
48. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there has been maladministration by the landlord with respect to its complaint handling.
49. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there has been maladministration by the landlord with respect to its record keeping.

Reasons

50. The Ombudsman finds that the landlord has failed to take reasonable steps to ensure that all repair works have been completed to the required standard within a reasonable timeframe. The landlord has failed to establish a clear structure of internal ownership which has meant that the matter has not been effectively progressed. The landlord has also failed to communicate in an effective way with the resident.
51. The landlord has failed to keep comprehensive records. It has also failed to properly address and resolve the issues through the complaints process.

Orders and recommendations

52. The Ombudsman requires that the landlord allocate a named representative to be a direct point of contact with the resident and to oversee the remaining works until completion and ensure that a final post-inspection is carried out to check that all works have been completed to the required specification and quality. It should advise the resident of this named representative within two weeks of the date of this Determination.
53. The Ombudsman requires that, within four weeks of the date of this Determination, the landlord undertake a full property inspection with the resident present which compiles a full list of outstanding items and then create an action plan for completion. If there are works that the resident has requested but which the landlord does not consider necessary, the landlord should confirm its position on these in writing so that the resident has a clear record of what has and has not been agreed. The landlord must undertake any works identified following the survey in a timely manner. 
54. The Ombudsman requires that the landlord pay the resident £1800 compensation for distress and inconvenience within four weeks of the date of this Determination. This is made up of £1500 compensation for the repairs failings and £300 for the complaints handling and record keeping failings.
55. The Ombudsman requires that the Chief Executive of the landlord provide a written apology to the resident.
56. The Ombudsman requires that the landlord undertake a review of its process for handling repairs in light of this Determination and develop an action plan to implement identified service improvements. The landlord must provide this to the Ombudsman within eight weeks of the date of this Determination.
57. The Ombudsman requires that the landlord reviews its current three stage internal complaints procedure to see if a two stage one would be appropriate, given the guidance set out in the Housing Ombudsman’s Complaints Handling Code. The landlord must provide this to the Ombudsman within eight weeks of the date of this Determination.