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

Havering Council (202226422)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202226422

Havering Council

29 April 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:

  1. Handling of the resident’s bathroom refurbishment.
  2. Complaint handling.

Background

2.     The resident is a secure tenant of the landlord, which is a local authority. The property is a ground floor flat.

3.     Following a consultation regarding a bathroom upgrade programme, the landlord sent the resident a letter on 11 November 2021 stating that the works to upgrade his bathroom would commence on 2 December 2021. It anticipated the works would require 7 days to complete and advised that workspaces would be cleaned at the beginning and end of each day.

4.     The works began on 26 January 2022 and were completed on 17 March 2022. The resident emailed the landlord on 6 March 2022 explaining that he was unhappy with the way the repairs had been managed. The landlord asked him to complete its online complaints form and include a summary of events of what went wrong. The resident completed the online complaints form on 8 March 2022. In summary, the issues were as follows;

  1. That the repairs had been badly managed.
  2. Poor standard of clearing up by the workmen.
  3. That a new radiator was not fitted in the bathroom.
  4. Lack of communication from the landlord.
  5. Length of time it took to complete the repairs.
  6. Works not completed to a high standard.
  7. He and his wife suffered distress and inconvenience.
  8. He requested compensation for the distress and inconvenience.

5.     In addition to his formal complaint, he also provided the landlord with a detailed summary of events from 26 January 2022 until 17 March 2022 when the repairs were eventually completed. In his summary of events, he referred to various instances where the landlord’s service did not meet his expectations.

6.     The landlord provided a stage 1 response on 22 March 2022. It thanked the resident for the detailed summary of events, it upheld the complaint and accepted that there was service failure in its handling of the resident’s bathroom refurbishment. In summary, it stated that:

  1. Whilst there were contributing factors to the time scales, with respects to the asbestos tiles and the additional plastering, that are not always known before the start of the works, the works took far too long and the communication with the resident and his wife was not acceptable.
  2. It was meeting with its contractor’s director to discuss a plan moving forward due to its dissatisfaction with the service they had received.
  3. Within the team, it now had resident liaison officers who would be able to assist residents moving forward.
  4. It planned to take away lessons learnt from this case and expected better performance from its contractors.
  5. It apologised for the distress and inconvenience and offered £75 as a good will gesture in line with the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman (LGSCO) recommendation for the inconvenience the resident and his wife experienced.

7.     The resident escalated his complaint on 29 April 2022, stating that the landlord’s compensation was pitiful. The landlord provided a stage 2 response on 12 December 2022. In summary, it stated as follows:

  1. The goodwill gesture offered was calculated at minimum inconvenience, in line with the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman’s guidelines at a rate of £1.37 per day. This was based on 54 days, calculated from the date work commenced until it was completed. It was unable to agree to an increased goodwill gesture; it did not uphold this aspect of the complaint.
  2. A meeting was held with its contractors to discuss the issues the resident experienced.
  3. It had appointed resident liaison officers to provide support to residents during refurbishment projects.
  4. It was satisfied that the stage 1 complaint was fully investigated and the goodwill gesture offered was in line with its goodwill/discretionary payments policy 2021 and the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman’s guidelines.
  5. It apologised for the delays experienced in the stage 2 investigation and explained this was due to lack of resources and an unusually high number of complaints being received.

8.     The resident contacted this Service, stating he was unhappy with the compensation offered and with the landlord stating he experienced minimal inconvenience during the repairs.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

9.     The resident reported that the handling of this complaint has negatively affected himself and his wife’s health. While we do not doubt his comments regarding this, in accordance with paragraph 42(f) of the Ombudsman’s Scheme, this Service is unable to determine liability or award damages for ill health because we do not have the authority or expertise to do so; this would be better suited for a court to decide upon. However, we have considered the general distress and inconvenience that the resident experienced because of the landlord’s handling of the complaint.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s bathroom refurbishment.

10. When investigating a complaint, the Ombudsman applies its Dispute Resolution Principles. These are high level good practice guidance developed from the Ombudsman’s experience of resolving disputes, for use by everyone involved in the complaints process. There are three principles driving effective dispute resolution:

  1. Be fair – treat people fairly and follow fair processes;
  2. Put things right, and;
  3. Learn from outcomes.

11. The Ombudsman must first consider whether a failing on the part of the landlord occurred, and if so, whether this led to any adverse effect or detriment to the resident. If it is found that a failing did lead to an adverse effect, the investigation will then consider whether the landlord has taken enough action to ‘put things right.’

12. Despite evidence requests made by this Service, the landlord has provided limited records detailing what happened during the refurbishment works prior to the resident’s complaint on 6 March 2022 and during the timeline of the resident’s repairs which were completed on 17 March 2022. Therefore, this Service has relied on the information provided in the resident’s summary of events as the landlord has not provided any evidence that contradicts this. 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. The lack of records and other evidence is a record keeping failure and an order has been made regarding this.

13. The landlord in its letter of 11 November 2021 stated that the refurbishment works would commence on 2 December 2021 and require 7 days to complete. According to the resident’s timeline of events which the landlord has not disputed, the works did not commence until 26 January 2022 and were completed on 17 March 2022. The landlord calculated the delay in completing works from 21 January 2022 until 16 March 2022, a total of 54 days.  The landlord stated in its complaint response that there was delay with respect to the asbestos tiles and the additional plastering required. While it is understandable that this might have caused some difficulties, it would have been reasonable for the landlord to communicate any difficulties it experienced with regards to the asbestos tiles and the plastering to the resident. This would have helped to manage his expectations regarding when the works would have been completed.

14. The resident in his summary of events highlighted various instances when contractors either arrived late for appointments or did not attend at all and he had to call and chase up repairs on numerous occasions. He had an unusually high involvement in the case, sometimes phoning the landlord twice a day to check if repairs were still going ahead. This would have had a negative impact on him and caused further distress and inconvenience. This was not reasonable and not in line with this Service’s expectations of the landlord.

15. He reported that on some occasions contractors attended but did not complete any repairs. The resident complained about the low standard of work and gave various instances of poor service such as jobs being done in the wrong order, often having to re-fit or re-do work. This resulted in more work and further delay.

16. For instance, he reported that the contractors ordered the wrong toilet, banged his hallway wallpaper, scratched the new bath, and caused damage to the bottom of the front door, the cold tap on the wash and the bathroom window frame, most of which had to be repaired. He also reported various instances of the contractors not cleaning up after themselves and leaving the bathroom floor and communal areas very dirty which upset the neighbours and caused him distress and inconvenience because he had to clean up after the contractors. The landlord has not disputed or provided any evidence contradicting the resident’s account of events.

17. While delays can occur during refurbishment projects, this Service would expect the landlord to take certain actions to manage the expectations of the resident like keeping them updated on the timeline of the repairs, give them prior notice of what contractors would attend the property and when, provide some explanation for any delays in completing the work and also have oversight of the quality of work its contractors were providing. In this case, the landlord has not met this Service’s expectations regarding the actions it should have taken during the repairs. This delay, poor quality of works by its contractors and poor communication was a failing by the landlord and would likely have caused distress and inconvenience to the resident and his wife.

18. The landlord in its complaint response acknowledged these failings and made some attempts to put things right. It apologised for the delays, held a meeting with its contractors to discuss the issues the resident experienced, appointed resident liaison officers to provide support for residents during refurbishment projects and offered compensation of £75 good will payment.

19. In the landlord’s stage 2 response, they refer to the goodwill payment being calculated at ‘minimal inconvenience’. This Service does not agree with this evaluation given the delays and disruption caused to the resident whilst work was in progress and does not consider the £75 goodwill gesture to be adequate redress for the identified failings and therefore a finding maladministration has been made in relation to the landlords handling of the resident’s bathroom refurbishment. This Service will be making an order for the landlord to pay the resident £500 in recognition of the distress and inconvenience suffered by the resident from the communication failures, poor service by the contractors and delays in completing the bathroom refurbishment at the end of this report.

The landlord’s complaint handling

20. The landlord’s complaint policy states that complaints should be responded to in 10 working days at stage 1 and at stage 2 requests should be acknowledged within 3 working days and a full written reply sent within 25 working days. It notes in certain cases, when a complaint is complex, it may be necessary to extend the timescales set out in its policy and procedure. However, the complainant must be informed of the reason why timescales cannot be met and informed when they should receive a full response.

21. The landlord responded to the resident’s stage 1 complaint in 11 working days, 1 day over its response timeframe. The resident escalated his complaint on 29 April 2022, the landlord responded at stage 2 on 12 December 2022. A total of 157 working days and 132 working days over its stage 2 response timeframe.  This Service has not seen any evidence of correspondence between the landlord and the resident informing him of reasons why the timescale could not be met or managing his expectations of when he would receive a response. This was a significant delay and a failing by the landlord as it did not respond according to its policy.

22. Although the landlord apologised for this delay in its response and stated this was due to lack of resources, it failed to offer suitable redress for the inconvenience caused to the resident. In addition to its apology, this Service would have expected the landlord to make things right for the resident by offering financial redress for the delays and explaining what it would do to prevent delays from happening in future.

23. Furthermore, the landlord did not address all the issues the resident mentioned in his complaints. At stage 1 the landlord failed to address concerns around not fitting new radiators, the contractor’s not cleaning up after themselves and the standard of the work. At stage 2, the landlord’s response failed to include the outcome of the meeting with its contractors and what steps it would take to resolve the issues the resident experienced.

24. This Service’s Complaint Handling Code states that the landlord must respond to all elements of a complaint. The landlord’s failure to respond to all aspects of the complaint and not providing information on what actions it took to improve the service provided by its contractors was not reasonable and not in line with this Service’s Code. This would likely have led the resident to believe his complaint was not being taken seriously, causing him further distress and inconvenience.

25. The Ombudsman has found maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the complaint due to the significant delay in responding at stage 2 of its process, the lack of evidence demonstrating that the resident was adequately updated and its failure to fully investigate his concerns and address each aspect. An order for the landlord to pay compensation to the resident in recognition of the inconvenience caused has been made below.

26. It is noted that the landlord used the LGSCO’s guidance when calculating its offer of compensation. As the complaint related to its role as a social housing provider, it would have been appropriate for the landlord to have considered the Housing Ombudsman’s remedies guidance.  

 

Determination

27. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in the way it handled the resident’s bathroom refurbishment.

28. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in respect of its complaint handling.

Orders

29. Within 4 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord must write to the resident to apologise for the service failures identified in this report.

30. Within 4 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord must pay the resident total compensation of £875. This £875 is comprised as follows:

  1. £75 previously offered to the resident at stage 2.
  2. £250 for delays in completing the bathroom refurbishment.
  3. £150 for poor communication.
  4. £100 for poor quality service from its contractors.
  5. £300 for distress and inconvenience caused by failures in its complaint handling.

31. The landlord to review its compensation policy to ensure it aligns to this Service’s remedies guidance when acting in its function as a landlord.

32. The landlord self-assesses against the Ombudsman’s spotlight report on knowledge and information when reviewing its record keeping procedures. This sets out the benefits of good record keeping and provides recommendations for landlords.

33. Within 8 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord must review its handling of this case and create an action plan to demonstrate how it will avoid these failings happening again in future. This should include:

  1. how it communicates with its contractors and residents to ensure that they are kept updated about outstanding repairs.
  2. how it monitors repairs through to completion, particularly where different trades are required.
  3. what actions it will take to monitor the quality of service its contractors provide when completing repairs.

34. The resulting action plan/report must be shared with the landlord’s directors responsible for complaints and housing activities.

35. The landlord should provide this Service with evidence of compliance with these orders within the timescales set out above.