London Borough of Barking and Dagenham (202013480)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202013480

London Borough of Barking and Dagenham

26 October 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 handling of:
1. The resident’s reports of repairs and information the landlord provided from the start of the tenancy.
2. The associated complaint.

Background and summary of events

The resident holds a secure tenancy with the landlord which began in February 2020. The property is a 1 bedroom flat on the sixth floor. There are no vulnerabilities recorded for the resident.
The landlord has a tenancy conditions document which states that it will maintain the structure and outside of the property. In flats, it will maintain all entrances and the shared facilities. It says if the landlord makes an appointment to carry out a repair and the contractor breaks the appointment without giving 24 hours’ notice, the resident can claim compensation.
The landlord’s complaint policy states it has a 2 stage process. Stage 1 complaints will be responded to within 10 working days. Stage 2 complaints will be responded to working 30 working days.
On sign up to the property, the landlord noted that key fobs had not been provided and details of the energy provider were “to follow or be confirmed”. No repairs were recorded.
On 27 May 2020 the landlord raised a repair to renew the window trickle vent. It also raised a repair to renew the spy hole and repair dents in the front door. 4 records of “no access” were recorded before the landlord noted the job was complete on 13 July 2020.
On 19 August 2020 the resident made a complaint to the landlord. He said:
1. He had made a complaint relating to his previous address on 9 January 2020 that had gone unanswered.
2. He wanted to make a new complaint about issues relating to his new address. He had viewed the property in late January and pointed out a number of repairs. The housing officer assured him that the repairs would be dealt with if he accepted the tenancy. However despite several attempts at contact since, he had got no response from the officer and was later told there were no outstanding repairs on the system. The repairs included:
  1. Issues with the window vent – an appointment was booked for March 2020 but cancelled without explanation
  2. A broken radiator control
  3. A damaged front door – it appeared to have been forced open at some point and protruding screws had been pushed back in, but it was unclear if it was a temporary job.
3. The balcony had moss and algae growing on it. He had been told that it would be cleaned, but later informed it was his responsibility to resolve. The windows needed cleaning and he wanted the responsibilities clarifying.
4. He wanted to know if there was documentation for the boiler, smoke and heat alarm systems. He also required access to the electricity and water meters.
5. There were no fixings on the window frames for curtains and he wanted to know if he could drill into the door frame.
6. He had received notice to pay outstanding rent on his old property, which he had paid in full. Money was then deducted from the home loss payment without warning, and no attempt was made to rectify the matter. Money had been left “sitting” in an old rent account. He wanted the overpayment refunded.
7. He wanted compensation for the landlord’s failures. The initial failures in part were due to the housing officer not raising the repair works, but his experience with the repairs team was not much better. Appointments had been missed and the landlord had not completed them in a timely manner.
On 14 September 2020 the landlord wrote to the resident with a complaint entitled “corporate complaint response”. It said that:
1. It had spoken to the officer who signed the resident into the property and they acknowledged that they had to raise several repairs, but due to a heavy workload, they had forgotten to do so. It was sorry for the level of service he had received.
2. Certain repair jobs had been cancelled due to the government imposed lockdown on 20 March 2020. It wanted to update him on all other repairs as follows:
  1. Window trickle vent logged on 27 May 2020 was on hold due to the pandemic as it was not deemed to be an emergency.
  2. Repair works to the front door and radiator knob had been booked for 23 September 2020.
3. All the repairs were considered non-emergencies except for the making flush the screws to facilitate the door closure.
4. With regards to his other concerns it wanted to update him as follows:
  1. The moss and algae he had reported on his balcony were his responsibility to maintain. He was not expected to place himself in danger to clean his windows nor to hire anyone to do so.
  2. A key could be made available to him to access the meter cupboards and would be sent within the week.
  3. There was no restrictions for him to hang curtains or other items in the property and he was able to install fittings to enable this.
  4. It was liaising with the gas department to try to source documentation relating to the boiler and smoke alarms. It would forward them to him once they had been received.
  5. Its rent department were looking into the issue of overpayment. They would be in contact directly if there was any further information they required.
5. If the resident was dissatisfied with the complaint response, he could ask for a review within 28 days.
On 24 September 2020 the landlord recorded the repair jobs were completed and no record of further contact between the landlord and the resident was seen.
The resident contacted the Ombudsman in February 2021. He advised that he was struggling to get the landlord to respond at stage 2 of its process for both complaints. The Ombudsman had to intervene and the landlord was sent 3 prompts requesting that it made contact with the resident, and respond to his complaint at stage 2. The Ombudsman informed the landlord that it should address several repairs he had raised including damage to his carpet and concerns about caretaking charges at his previous address.
The landlord wrote to the resident on 14 April 2021. It said that it recognised the need to escalate the matter to stage 2 and would respond by 27 May 2021. On 20 April 2021, it reopened a repair to the radiator value with a 20 day completion target. It recorded it could not get access to the property and “cancelled as not required” on 31 August 2020. Around the same time, the landlord told the resident it was “completely overwhelmed with casework” and was sorry for the delay in responding to him. It asked him to confirm whether 3 particular repairs were outstanding.
The resident contacted the landlord on 13 September 2021 and said he had still not received a final response to either complaint. He said he had been left in a “farcical situation” where repairs were booked and operatives would repeatedly attend with the wrong part. He chased the landlord on a further 2 occasions for a response.
On 24 September 2021 the landlord reopened the 3 repairs jobs with a 20 day timeframe for completion.
On 7 October 2021 the landlord wrote to the resident at stage 2 of its complaint process. It said was sorry for the delay in writing to the resident, it was experiencing high volumes of casework which had impacted its response times:
1. It did not have information for the heating system.
2. The key to the meter cupboard had been posted to him, but there was no record of what date it was sent. It was his responsibility to arrange for an energy supplier.
3. A backlog of repairs had occurred due to the pandemic. The repairs to the window vent, the front door and radiator knob had been booked for 11 October 2021.
4. With regards to the complaint he had made about the communal door entry system at his old property, a job was attended to in December 2019 but the operatives did not have the correct materials to complete the job. The repair was completed on 14 January 2020.
5. It was sorry for the error on his rent account. The rent team had confirmed that there was a credit on his old account of £201.02 and this had been transferred to his new account in September 2020.
6. In recognition of the delays he had experienced, it wanted to offer him £250 in compensation. If he was dissatisfied with the complaint response, he could refer the matter to the Ombudsman.
The resident contacted the landlord on 14 October 2021. He said that the appointments on 11 October 2021 were kept but the repairs remained outstanding:
1. The operative did not have the correct window replacement vent, the security viewer on his door had not been replaced and the door was sanded down but not repainted.
2. He wanted to know when all his repairs would be resolved and asked if he could be provided with the door paint himself so he could complete the job.
3. He had wasted enough days allowing access for appointments which failed to fix the issue, and did not want to stay in for more appointments which would be needed for the paint to dry between coats.
The landlord responded on 15 November 2021 and said that it understood that the joinery works had been completed and paint would be delivered to the resident on 17 November 2021.
The resident referred the matter back to the Ombudsman. He said that:
1. His complaint was logged with the landlord in August 2020 but it took until December 2021 for the landlord to complete all of the repairs. Most of the repairs were raised before COVID-19 lockdowns so he had never been given an adequate reason for the delays
2. The landlord failed to attend numerous appointments despite claiming it could not gain access. He received no door knock or calling card which demonstrated that the operatives had visited. He had the same experience with more recent repairs.
3. The landlord failed to resolve the first complaint relating to issues in his previous property. His second complaint was also unresolved. The landlord had failed to provide him with instruction of how he could switch off the boiler and it never addressed the issues he had raised about damage to his carpet.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of repairs and information from the start of the tenancy.

It is not disputed that the resident raised a number of repairs on the day he viewed the property in January 2020. Records show that on the same day, the landlord noted that key fobs and confirmation of energy supplier were “to follow or be confirmed”. It was the landlord’s responsibility to raise the repairs and provide the resident with timely updates about the keys and relevant advice about the energy supplier. There is no evidence that the landlord took prompt action on the outstanding items of concern, which was unreasonable.
Aspects of the resident’s complaint relate to misinformation he was given at the start of his tenancy. In accordance with the resident’s tenancy agreement, he would have been responsible for cleaning the moss and algae from his balcony but the landlord would have been responsible for the window cleaning. Whilst the landlord clarified these points in its stage 1 response, it did not go far enough to explain to the resident what the window cleaning schedule was and when he could expect them to be cleaned. This simple explanation could have better managed the resident’s expectations and assured him that the windows were on a cyclical cleaning schedule.
There was evident confusion with the status of the resident’s rent account from the start of the tenancy. Whilst the landlord raised a query with the rents team, it failed to communicate that it had resolved the issue in September 2020 until it responded at stage 2 of its complaint process over a year later. The delay was unreasonable and caused the resident unnecessary confusion and frustration.
The landlord’s tenancy conditions document says that if it makes an appointment to carry out a repair and the contractor breaks the appointment without giving 24 hours’ notice, the resident can claim compensation. The landlord failed to consider whether compensation was appropriate when the resident notified it that an appointment in March 2020 had been missed without notice, which was unreasonable.
In March 2020, a national lockdown was imposed by government as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic. Due to restrictions on in-person contact, the landlord’s service delivery with regards to non-emergency repairs changed, which was reasonable. The Ombudsman published “guidance on best practice for landlord’s during COVID-19” on 14 July 2020. It explained that where repairs could not be undertaken, they should remain open and tracked, and any delays should be clearly explained to the resident. The landlord failed to follow to Ombudsman’s guidance. There is no evidence that it communicated effectively with the resident and open repairs were closed down prematurely.
There were failures in the landlord’s record keeping. The resident has informed the Ombudsman that he chased the landlord on several occasions before making a complaint and asking this Service to intervene. The landlord has not provided evidence of regular records of contact for the resident, other than the emails he sent specifically in relation to his complaint. Landlords should have appropriate mechanisms in place to monitor and record reports of repairs. In this case, failures in the landlord’s record keeping led to confusion about whether repairs had been attended to or not. For example, it was unreasonable for the landlord to ask the resident if he could confirm whether the repairs had been completed in August 2020.
The landlord’s repair records note that it was unable to obtain access on several occasions, which the resident disputes. The Ombudsman’s Spotlight on Knowledge and Information Management recommends that landlords should set out clear requirements of operatives before they are allowed to record an appointment as missed. In this case, there were occasions within the landlord’s repair notes where it recorded “no access” with no further notes of whether a door knock, telephone call or carding took place, which was unreasonable. The landlord’s alleged failure to access the property should not have caused it to have completed the repairs on its system.
As a result of it completing the repairs prematurely, the landlord reopened the same jobs approximately a year later, on 24 September 2021. The delay in raising and rescheduling the repairs was inappropriate. Each repair was given a 20 day priority to complete and its appointment to resolve matters on 11 October 2021 was within this timeframe. Given the amount of time that had passed and that there was an open complaint for the resident, it would have been reasonable for the landlord to have provided the resident with a schedule of works. It missed an opportunity to explain that the door would require several visits to allow for paint to dry between coats and in doing so it failed to manage his expectations within its stage 2 response.
The landlord offered the resident £250 in compensation for the delays in attending to his repairs. The landlord has failed to provide the Ombudsman with a copy of its compensation policy, however the amount it offered was in line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance for a finding of maladministration. Had the landlord concluded the resident’s repairs within the stage 2 response, the amount it offered would have been reasonable. However, it failed to do so, and the resident experienced further inconvenience when the landlord attended with the wrong parts on 11 October 2021. The landlord demonstrated no empathy towards the resident when he expressed that he was dissatisfied that he would have to stay in for several further appointments to paint the front door. He experienced further delays in the landlord confirming that it would send him the paint he requested, causing him unnecessary inconvenience.
Overall, there was maladministration of the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of repairs and information from the start of the tenancy. The landlord failed to raise repairs for the resident in a timely manner and closed them prematurely contrary to the Ombudsman’s guidance for landlords during the COVID-19 pandemic. The landlord’s stage 2 response failed to manage the residents expectations and see his repairs through to conclusion, prolonging a resolution to repairs which had already been outstanding for approximately 18 months. Further compensation has been awarded which takes into account the additional inconvenience caused to the resident after the stage 2 response up until the conclusion of the repairs in November 2021.

The resident’s complaints related to both his current and previous property.

There were significant failures in the landlord’s complaint handling. The resident’s complaint in August 2020 made it clear that he was dissatisfied with the lack of response for a previous complaint and raised a number of issues relating to repairs and information he had been given at the start of his tenancy. The Housing Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code) makes it clear that landlords should acknowledge complaints within 5 working days. In doing so, the landlord should set out the understanding of the complaint and the outcome the resident is seeking. There is no evidence that the landlord did this or sought to contact the resident to clarify his complaint. Its failure to do so was a missed opportunity to understand the full extent of the resident’s complaint, and caused him evident frustration.
The stage 1 response followed 18 working days later, outside of the response times that could be expected within the landlord’s complaint policy. The landlord did not make it clear what stage the complaint response was at, simply referring to it as “corporate complaint response” which was inappropriate. It made no apology for the delay in responding to the resident which was unreasonable.
The landlord apologised for the delay in raising the repairs and clarified the resident’s responsibilities with regards to the moss on the balcony and window cleaning which was appropriate. However it did not offer a satisfactory solution to the repair to his window vent or his rent account query, which was unreasonable. The landlord failed to address the resident’s concerns about the outstanding complaint response relating to his previous property. It would have been appropriate for the landlord to have considered the resident’s previous complaint as part of its overall response to the resident’s concerns about poor communication.
The landlord has not provided the Ombudsman with a record of the resident’s request to escalate his complaint and he reported that he had difficulties in obtaining a stage 2 response, chasing it on at least 3 occasions. This showed that the landlord had not learnt from outcomes relating to his previous complaints. The Ombudsman also had to intervene on 3 occasions, repeatedly asking the landlord to respond to the resident at the next stage of its complaint process.
In the Ombudsman’s letter dated 13 August 2021 it explained that a Complaint Handling Failure Order (CHFO) would be issued if the landlord did not respond to the resident within 5 working days. The Ombudsman detailed all elements of the resident’s complaint that he expressed dissatisfaction with, this included issues with his underlay and caretaking charges at his old address. Although contact from the Ombudsman prompted communication from the landlord to the resident, it simply acknowledged that his request for an escalation had been received. It did not contact the resident to get a full understanding of all aspects of his complaint, but asked him to update whether 3 repairs had been completed which was inappropriate. The landlord failed to respond to the resident’s complaint at stage 2 for a further 37 working days. The delay was inappropriate and did not demonstrate that it had taken the advice from the Ombudsman seriously.
The landlord failed to apply the Ombudsman’s dispute resolution principles of “be fair, put things right, and learn from outcomes”. There were elements of the resident’s complaint around the caretaking service charge and the underlay that went unanswered, which was unreasonable. Whilst the landlord apologised for the delay in responding to the resident, it failed to acknowledge the full extent of its complaint handling failures. It is assumed that the compensation that it ordered was for the delays in concluding the repairs. No further compensation awarded for the inconvenience, time and trouble the resident experienced in bringing his complaint which was unreasonable.
Overall there was severe maladministration of the landlord’s complaint handling. The landlord failed to take prompt ownership of the complaint and see matters through to conclusion. It failed to address all elements of the resident’s complaint and it did not identify any learning from its failures. The landlord’s communication about both complaints was poor and it failed to put matters right for the resident.
Once the complaint was brought to the Ombudsman for investigation, additional delays occurred where the landlord failed to provide the requested evidence. The Ombudsman had to send 3 requests for information and the landlord was warned again that its failure to do so put it at risk of a CHFO. When the landlord provided the information on 25 July 2022, it made no apology for the delay and the evidence requested was incomplete, which was inappropriate. The failure to provide the Ombudsman with evidence in a timely manner has prolonged a resolution for the resident, causing him unnecessary inconvenience.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration in respect of the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of repairs and misinformation from the start of the tenancy.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was severe maladministration in respect of the landlord’s complaint handling.

Reasons

The landlord did not follow the Ombudsman’s guidance on best practice for landlord’s during the COVID-19 pandemic. It did not communicate effectively with the resident and rather than keep repairs open until it could safely complete them, it closed the jobs down. There were also failures in the landlord’s record keeping and it failed to conclude matters in its stage 2 response, prolonging a conclusion for the resident.
The landlord failed to adopt the Ombudsman’s key dispute resolution principles of “be fair, put things right, and learn from outcomes”. There were delays in responding to the resident and responding comprehensively to all points that he raised. The Ombudsman had to intervene on several occasions and despite being warned of being issued with a CHFO, the landlord failed to take prompt action to engage with the resident and this Service.

Orders

The Ombudsman orders the landlord to make contact with the resident within 4 weeks. It must:
1. Apologise for the failures highlighted in this investigation
2. Respond in writing to his outstanding concerns relating a caretaking charge at his previous property and damage to his carpet
3. Provide him with details of how to operate the boiler
4. Obtain an understanding of what his more recent repairs concerns are, and provide him with a schedule of works.
The Ombudsman orders the landlord to pay the resident £550 in compensation. Compensation is to be paid directly to the resident and not offset against any arrears, within 4 weeks. The compensation is comprised of:
1. £300 for the inconvenience, time and trouble caused to the resident for failures in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of repairs and information from the start of the tenancy.
2. £250 for the inconvenience, time and trouble caused to the resident for failures in the landlord’s complaint handling.
The landlord carry out a review of this case to identify learning and improve its working practices within 6 weeks. The review must include:
1. an explanation of how the landlord will quality check the works of its contractors, and how it intends to identify and respond to repeat repairs in the future
2. review of its procedures for record keeping. In doing so, the landlord should have regard to the Ombudsman’s Knowledge and Information Management Spotlight report Housing Ombudsman Spotlight report on damp and mould (housing-ombudsman.org.uk)
3. a review of its information sharing process with the Ombudsman, to ensure that requested evidence is provided in a timely manner.