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

Hinckley and Bosworth Borough Council (202011700)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202011700

Hinckley and Bosworth Borough Council

25 February 2021


Our approach

The Housing Ombudsman’s approach to investigating and determining complaints is to decide what is fair in all the circumstances of the case. This is set out in the Housing Act 1996 and the Housing Ombudsman Scheme (the 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

This complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of repairs needed to his property.

Background and summary of events

Background

  1. The resident is an introductory tenant whose tenancy began on 11 November 2019. The landlord is a local authority and the property is a 2-bedroom bungalow.
  2. The landlord recorded from the start of the tenancy that the resident had mobility problems, a bad back and epilepsy.
  3. The tenancy agreement requires the landlord to ‘keep in repair the structure and exterior of the property’.
  4. The landlord has a repairs manual that sets out four categories for repairs priorities and the target timescales for each:
    1. ‘Priority 1’ (completion within 24 hours) – such as unsecure doors/windows
    2. ‘Priority 2’ (within 7 days) – such as small urgent repairs to doors
    3. ‘Priority 3’ (within 28 days) – ‘reasonable sized responsive jobs which are not urgent but if left may cause more damage’
    4. ‘Priority 4’ (within 72 days) – ‘larger planned jobs’ such as guttering and bricklaying
  5. The landlord has a 2-stage complaints procedure – the target timescales for responses are 10 working days at both stages of the complaints process.

 

Summary of Events

  1. The landlord has provided post-inspection feedback sheets showing the resident was ‘very satisfied’ following inspections on 28 November 2019, 19 December 2019 and 20 February 2020. The resident indicated that the inspector completed a thorough inspection and had explained to him what works would be done.
  2. The landlord’s repairs records show that:
    1. a skimming job was raised on 18 November 2019 and again on 28 November 2019; these were recorded as completed on 10 January 2020
    2. a job was raised on 28 November 2019 to re-seal the outside of a window frame; this was recorded as completed on 11 December 2019
    3. a job was raised on 16 December 2019 to fit a plywood door; this was recorded as completed on 23 January 2020
    4. a job was raised on 16 January 2020 to rectify some plastering work; this was recorded as completed on 20 February 2020
    5. a job was raised on 12 February 2020 as the back door was reported not to be shutting properly; it was recorded as completed the same day
    6. a job was raised on 20 February 2020 to renew double glazed units; this was recorded as completed on 12 November 2020
    7. a job was raised and completed on 11 March 2020 to re-hang a door
    8. a job was raised on 12 March 2020 to renew a combination frame to the rear of the property; this was recorded as completed on 16 December 2020
  3. The landlord recorded receipt of an enquiry from the resident (apparently about outstanding repairs) on 23 July 2020 although a copy has not been provided to this Service. A reply was sent the same day by the landlord that advised the contractor would call the resident with an update (the landlord also notified the contractor of the enquiry). The resident chased the matter again on 6 August 2020 when he advised the landlord that its contractor had informed him that they had no open job to measure the front door.
  4. The landlord’s repairs records show that:
    1. a job was raised on 1 September 2020 to supply and install a front door; this was recorded as completed on 8 September 2020 (but based on other evidence seen by this Service, the job remains incomplete)
    2. a job was raised on 22 October 2020 to remove, renew and skim a ceiling; this job is indicated as still being open
  5. The resident chased the landlord on 9 October 2020, seeking an update on when both doors would be renewed.
  6. The resident made an initial complaint – this Service has been provided with an undated copy of the complaint. The resident stated that repairs were still outstanding from the beginning of his tenancy (almost a year after it began). The resident specifically mentioned:
    1. a delay of three months in some repairs being completed, leading to plastering falling away and the resident not being able to fit carpets which left the property cold during winter
    2. a dropped ceiling repair attempt with a piece of skirting board being screwed into the joists
    3. the door to his garden being screwed shut, meaning he had to screw and unscrew the door to access the garden each day and he could not open the door during hot summer temperatures
    4. the front door had dropped which was reported twice but no repairs had been raised

The resident asked for an explanation as to why he had to chase repairs being done and why repairs had failed. He asked for repairs to be completed and for compensation to be considered.

  1. The landlord issued a Stage one complaint response on 22 October 2020. It concluded that:
    1. having viewed photographs provided that day of the hallway ceiling, it agreed works were substandard and this would be rectified
    2. an apology was offered that a surveyor attended in February 2020 and agreed the front door needed to be renewed but that works were not raised until September 2020 – the landlord promised its contractor would attend to measure up and the door would be installed within 8-9 weeks
    3. for the combination frame and window units that needed renewal, the works raised by the surveyor in February 2020 were incorrect but the unit/frame was on order and expected to arrive by 2 November 2020, after which it would be swiftly installed
  2. The resident chased a Stage one response on 6 November 2020, after which it became apparent that the response had not been posted so a copy was sent to the resident by email on 6 November 2020.
  3. The resident wrote to the landlord to escalate the complaint on 9 November 2020. He stated the back door had now been installed but that he had been informed now that the front door would not be installed until 2021. He added that he had chased the front door in July 2020 but this was not reflected in the Stage one response and that the landlord was aware of the problems at the property throughout. He mentioned that he was a disabled vulnerable person, that he had experienced distress as a result of these matters and was shocked that no compensation had been offered.
  4. The landlord issued a Stage two complaint response on 12 November 2020. It first apologised for the delay in the Stage one response being provided and that it was not sent in the same format as the complaint was received. It upheld the complaint, acknowledged there had been service failure since the inspection in February 2020 and apologised for this. It concluded that:
    1. although the front door was lockable, it was difficult to lock and it was decided in February 2020 that it would be replaced but the works had not been raised and had then been impacted by the pandemic (between March-June 2020); it acknowledged that the resident had chased this in July 2020 but that it did not address this at the time
    2. the inspection of the rear door unit in February 2020 led to a decision being taken to screw the door shut to keep the property secure and works were raised as ‘Priority 4’ but had been interrupted by the pandemic; it confirmed it had chased its contractors after the resident raised the matter in July 2020 and the renewal had now been completed (but an issue with the door sash had been noted and it was stated that this would be rectified within 2 weeks and that, in the meantime, the door was secure and not draughty if shut properly)
    3. the decision to install skirting board to the hallway ceiling was poor and a new order had been raised to renew the ceiling
    4. the plastering issues were not noticeable during the void process due to the presence of wallpaper but the plastering that was done (as well as a hole in the flooring) was completed within the required timescales

The landlord reiterated its apologies and stated it would review the performance of the inspector.

  1. The contractor reported to the landlord on 17 November 2020 that they had visited the day before and found the rear door sash had settled so no further work was needed. The landlord agreed to inspect this issue itself as when it spoke to the resident, he still had concerns. It did so on 11 December 2020, after which it noted that the door was within ‘prohibited tolerances’ and, although there was a gap when it was latched, it ‘shut fine’.
  2. The landlord informed this Service that it expected to be able to install the new front door in the second week of February 2021 and that the hallway ceiling works were presently on hold due to the lockdown restrictions. The resident advised this Service on 12 February 2021 that the front door renewal remained outstanding at that point.

Assessment and findings

  1. In reaching a decision we consider whether the landlord has kept to the law, followed proper procedure and good practice, and acted in a reasonable way. Our duty is to determine complaints by reference to what is, in this Service’s opinion, fair in all the circumstances of the case.
  2. It is not disputed that the resident reported repairs being needed shortly after moving into the property in November 2019. This is evidenced by the landlord conducting three inspections from November 2019 to February 2020. Records seen by this Service indicate that the resident was satisfied with these inspections and repairs to plastering and window frames were completed within the landlord’s repairs target timescales. These initial actions were therefore appropriate responses to the resident’s repairs reports.
  3. The landlord has acknowledged that an inspection occurred in February 2020 but that the repairs raised as a result were both incorrect and incomplete. This complaint covers three primary areas of concern and the landlord’s actions were inappropriate for all of these:
    1. Hallway plastering – a job was raised to fit a skirting board to the ceiling, seemingly in an effort to stabilise the ceiling – the landlord accepted that this was substandard when it reviewed the matter through the complaints process
    2. Back door – a temporary fix for security was carried out by the door being screwed shut and a job was raised to renew the unit at the rear – the landlord later advised that this job was raised incorrectly
    3. Front door – no job was raised as a result of the February 2020 inspection – the landlord accepted that this was in error as the inspector had determined that renewal was needed

All of these actions on the part of the landlord were unreasonable and contributed to delays in progress of all three repairs.

  1. Even if the landlord considered all repairs to have been ‘Priority 4’ works, there were delays in completion of the works that were well outside of its target timescales and therefore inappropriate:
    1. the hallway ceiling repair is still incomplete, more than a year after the February 2020 inspection
    2. the back door works were completed in November 2020, nine months after the February 2020 inspection
    3. the front door renewal is still outstanding, more than a year after the February 2020 inspection
  2. The landlord was aware that the resident had physical health problems. It was also aware that the condition of both the front and rear doors meant that locking them was difficult and access to the rear of the property was only possible by unscrewing the temporary screws it had installed in February 2020. The landlord has not demonstrated that it took into account the resident’s health problems when it left his property in this condition – it would have been reasonable for the landlord to consider prioritising the repairs given the potential impact on the resident.
  3. It is not disputed that the resident approached the landlord during July-August 2020 to pursue outstanding repairs and that this failed to prompt the landlord into action beyond sending an email to their contractor. This was unreasonable and meant that the landlord lost an opportunity to remedy the delay it had already caused.
  4. This Service accepts that March 2020 and the following weeks was a difficult period for most organisations given the impact of Covid-19. Local authorities often had to transfer staff to frontline services to ensure a continuity of business and backlogs arose in repairs and maintenance jobs for many landlords. The region where this property is based also experienced local lockdowns in the summer of 2020 which will inevitably have impacted the landlord’s repairs service delivery.
  5. However, it is reasonable to conclude that had the landlord raised accurate repairs orders when it attended the property in mid-February 2020, its contractors should have been able to have obtained specifications for the new door units by the point of the first lockdown. It would then have been reasonable for the installations to have occurred by autumn 2020 – the landlord therefore caused unnecessary delay with its own actions, in addition to those delays caused by the pandemic and lockdown restrictions.
  6. Further, this Service has seen no evidence that the landlord sought to offer updates to the resident and again lost an opportunity to do so when he submitted the enquiry in July 2020. It was not until he made a complaint in October 2020 that any meaningful update was given to the resident – this was unreasonable and will have caused inevitable uncertainty to the resident.
  7. The Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles are:
  • Be fair
  • Put things right
  • Learn from outcomes

This Service will apply these principles when considering whether any redress is appropriate and proportionate for any maladministration or service failure identified.

  1. The landlord has apologised to the resident through the complaints process and indicated that it will learn lessons from the failures of the February inspection. However, given the circumstances of the case in terms of the lengthy period of avoidable delay and the potential impact on the resident, it would have been an appropriate remedy for the landlord to have awarded compensation to the resident. Indeed, the resident requested the landlord consider this within both his initial complaint and his complaint escalation but the landlord was silent on the issue in both of its responses – this was unreasonable and meant that the landlord failed to demonstrate its determination to put things right.
  2. The Ombudsman’s Remedies Guidance recommends a range of levels of compensation that can be awarded dependent on the circumstances of a case. A mid-range of £250 to £700 is recommended where there has been a service failure that has been over a considerable period of time but has not caused a permanent impact to the resident. Given some of the period of delay was outside of the landlord’s control due to the national and local pandemic lockdowns, it would be reasonable for a financial remedy at the lower end of this range to be offered.
  3. In summary, the landlord did not comply with its repairs obligations – it did not correctly raise repairs when it inspected the resident’s property in February 2020 and therefore failed to complete repairs within the timescales its policy requires. It did not resolve the repairs when the resident raised them again during the summer of 2020 and some of the repairs remain outstanding a year after the initial inspection. It has not demonstrated that it considered the resident’s health concerns and the impact of the outstanding repairs on his ability to enter and exit the property and to decorate the hallway.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s reports that repairs were needed to his property.

Reasons

  1. The landlord contributed to unreasonable delays in repairs being completed to the resident’s property and acted outside of its obligations and policies. It has failed to offer sufficient redress for its service failures.

Orders

  1. The landlord to pay compensation of £300 to the resident within 4 weeks of the date of this report in recognition of the service failure identified and the impact of this on the resident.
  2. The landlord to write to the resident within 4 weeks of the date of this report to offer an update on why there has been a further delay in completion of the front door renewal and when this renewal will be done.
  3. The landlord to write to the resident within 4 weeks of the date of this report to advise if there is an estimated timescale yet for the hallway ceiling repairs.

 

Recommendations

  1. Within 8 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord should provide complaint handling training to relevant staff, including reference to the Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles.