London Borough of Brent (202234191)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202234191

London Borough of Brent

30 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

The complaint is about the landlord’s response to the resident’s request for information about the replacement windows to the property.
The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

The resident is a leaseholder of the property and the lease started on 26 February 1992. The property is described as a first floor flat.
The resident has mental health and medical conditions.
On 28 March 2019, following a disrepair claim made by the resident, proceedings were stayed upon the terms set out in a Tomlin order. The landlord agreed to carry out the works identified in a Scott Schedule dated 17 August 2015 within 90 days.
The landlord sent the resident a Section 20 Notice of Proposed Works on 17 August 2022 to replace 3 living room windows and 1 kitchen window. The resident was asked to provide any observations by 20 September 2022.
The landlord and resident communicated in October 2022 regarding the installation of the windows in the property. The resident requested information about the works, cost breakdown and method statement. On 9 November 2022, the landlord advised that the replacement windows would be purpose-built double-glazed hardwood windows and ready for installation in January 2023. Also, that the installation should take between 7 to 10 days.
On 3 January 2023, the resident contacted her councillor to complain about the installation of the replacement windows to the property. The resident complained that she had received contradictory advice from the landlord and its contractor about the time required to install the windows to the property. The resident explained that she had agreed to provide access on 9 January 2023. However, the landlord had not provided the requested information describing the method statement to be used to install the windows and information about:
1. whether the works complied with the conservation design brief;
2. whether the planning and conservation officer had been consulted about the planned works to the property.
The resident concluded her email to the councillor advising that as she suffered from asthma, she may have to reschedule the appointment for the installation of the windows.
The landlord responded to the complaint on 26 January 2023. The key findings were:
1. The windows had been assessed as being beyond repair.
2. A Section 20 notice for the cost of replacing the windows had been issued.
3. Its contractor intended to install the windows internally rather than using a scaffold.
4. A joint inspection had been arranged to take place on 1 February 2023 to assess whether building regulations approval were necessary.
5. It was aware that the resident found the situation frustrating.
The resident remained dissatisfied and escalated her complaint the following day (27 January 2023). The resident expressed that the landlord had failed to answer her questions about whether the windows it intended to install met the requirements of the conservation area and/or building regulations. Also, the landlord had not provided the method statement or explained why a further inspection of the property was required.
On 30 January 2023, the landlord emailed the resident, confirming the visit at her property on 1 February 2023. The landlord also requested that the resident consider delaying the escalation of her complaint until after the visit. In response, the resident refused the landlord’s request. The resident gave reasons regarding her medical condition, that she had complained in December 2021 and had contacted the landlord several times to establish when the work will be completed. Furthermore, the resident stated that she had read the design brief and checked the online planning portal and could not see the planning application for the installation of the windows to her property.
The landlord provided its final complaint response on 9 March 2023. The landlord upheld the complaint and its key findings were that it:
1. Agreed that its contractor did not attend the visit on 1 February 2023. The landlord apologised for the resident having a poor experience at the visit.
2. Recognised that the inspection report following the visit was not sent to the resident. It agreed that the housing management service would review the resident’s complaint and take steps to stop the issue reoccurring.
3. Apologised for the poor customer service the resident received as the requested information was not provided.
4. Stated that the resident’s request for information was more detailed than it usually received. However, the resident should not have been told to make a Freedom of Information request to receive it.
5. Agreed that within the 2 weeks of its complaint response, it would send the:
  1. Method statement for the proposed work.
  2. Confirmation of compliance with the conservation design guide.
  3. Confirmation that the work complied with building regulations.
On 23 March 2023, the landlord sent the resident a file showing how the dust in the property would be managed and advised that a supervisor would assess whether the dishwasher needed to be moved.

Events after the complaints process was exhausted.

After speaking to the resident on 5 April 2023, the landlord’s Property Services Resolution Manager agreed to carry out a visit to the resident’s property.
The resident informed the landlord on 21 September 2023 that progress had not been made on replacing the defective windows.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

This report will look at the landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns from when the resident made her complaint on 3 January 2023. The Ombudsman understands that the resident made a disrepair complaint to her landlord in 2015 which included the repair of the windows. The disrepair claim was settled in 2019. Following this, the landlord assessed that the condition of the windows were beyond repair and required replacement. The resident has informed this Service that she will raise her outstanding dissatisfaction with her legal representative about the landlord’s decision to replace rather than repair the windows.
The resident has expressed her dissatisfaction and frustration with the landlord’s handling of her concerns regarding the replacement of the windows to the property. The resident’s feelings are acknowledged and it is understandable that the situation is likely to have caused frustration and distress.
The Ombudsman’s role is to look at the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns and her request for information. Also, to assess whether the landlord’s response was reasonable in all circumstances of the case, including in regard to its policies and obligations under the lease.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s request for information about the replacement windows to the property.

The landlord’s repairing obligations are set out in Section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985. The landlord accepted that it had a responsibility to keep in repair the living room and kitchen windows and that to do so, the windows needed to be replaced.
The resident requested specific information regarding the planned installation of the replacement windows. This concerned confirmation that the installation would be carried out in line with its published design brief, information on how the works would be carried out and whether building regulation approval was required.
The landlord accepted in its final complaint response that it had not supplied the requested information to the resident and had failed to address her concerns. It agreed to do so within 2 weeks of its complaint response, recognising that the resident had been incorrectly signposted to make a Freedom of Information request. The landlord appropriately acknowledged its earlier failings and its proposed resolution was reasonable as this approach would have addressed the resident’s concerns about the window installations.
However, from the information submitted to this Service, the correspondence sent to the resident as agreed in its complaint response did not provide clear answers to the resident’s questions. It missed an opportunity to provide certainty to the resident regarding the role, if any, of the planning and building control services. A link it included to a document to its website was not helpful as it directed the resident to generic pages which did not answer the resident’s questions. The landlord therefore missed an opportunity to resolve the resident’s concerns and it failed to do what it agreed in its complaint response.
The relevant conservation design guide for the area sets out the principles to be followed when replacing windows to the property. The resident wanted assurance that when the landlord replaced the windows, it would adhere to these principles, including the involvement of the conservation officer. However, despite the resident making this point on several occasions, there is no evidence that the landlord took steps to confirm the involvement, if any, of the conservation officer or whether a planning application was required.
This Service’s Spotlight Report on complaints about repairs (March 2019) sets out that landlords should have oversight of the contractor that is responsible for delivering repairs. There is no evidence that when its contractor visited the resident’s property, the landlord made any attempt to reassure her that they were familiar with the content of the design guide. This resulted in the resident lacking confidence in the information relied upon by the contractor.
The resident received contradictory information about the timescale for the living room and kitchen window installation. The landlord informed the resident that the installation of the windows would take between 7 to 10 days. The landlord’s contractor advised that the installation would be completed within a day. There is no evidence that the landlord provided clarity to the resident about this, which was not reasonable. It is noted that the contactor attended in December 2022 to inform the resident that it intended to carry out the installation shortly. The contractor did not answer the resident’s questions about compliance with the design guide, referring her back to the landlord to get answers to her questions.
The resident asked that the landlord ensure the window installation was carried out externally due to the potential impact on her health, stating that installing the windows internally would aggravate her asthma. There is no evidence that the landlord or its contractor considered this or made an assessment of the severity of her asthma. Therefore, this Service has not seen evidence that it considered whether it needed to make an adjustment to assist the resident.
Furthermore, there is no evidence that the landlord or its contractor provided its reasons for its position on its stated method of installing the windows. Supplying the resident with its method statement would have given the resident clarity about its decision to install the windows internally. The lack of response created further uncertainty for the resident. It is noted that the landlord provided the resident with generic risk assessment information related to Control of Substances Hazardous to Health (COSHH) following its final complaint response. However, this document gives general information about its contractor’s working arrangements including the management of dust. This was unlikely to have offered reassurance to the resident, particularly as the landlord did not discuss or assess whether additional measures needed to be put in place to address the resident’s health concerns.
The landlord agreed to visit the resident’s property with its contractor on 1 February 2023. From what can be seen, the landlord’s surveyor attended the visit alone and an explanation was not provided to the resident for the absence of the contractor. This was not reasonable as the purpose of the visit was to alleviate the resident’s concerns and to address the outstanding issues regarding its working methods.
At the visit, the surveyor discussed with the resident the relocation of a dishwasher and agreed to obtain further information about whether a planning application was required. This implies that although the landlord had informed the resident it was ready to install the windows, it had not obtained advice from the planning service to establish whether an application was necessary. The landlord’s submission to this Service has accepted that the outcome of the visit was not communicated to the resident in writing. The landlord in its final complaint response acknowledged that the visit did not meet its service standards and apologised to the resident for this.
In summary, the landlord has not demonstrated that it responded appropriately or reasonably to the resident’s request for information and it left her concerns unanswered. Good communication from the landlord is imperative to provide reassurance to residents that issues raised are taken seriously when invasive works are planned. The landlord’s communication with the resident was poor as it did not address her specific concerns regarding adherence to the design brief or how it proposed to carry out the living room and kitchen window installation to the property. It also failed to manage the resident’s expectation as her substantive concerns remained unaddressed.

The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

The landlord’s complaint procedure states it will respond to complaints within 10 working days at its first stage and within 20 working days at its final stage.
The resident contacted her councillor expressing her dissatisfaction with the outstanding window replacement on 3 January 2023. The landlord acted in accordance with its complaint procedure and treated the enquiry from the councillor as a complaint. The landlord responded to the complaint at the first stage of its complaint procedure on 26 January 2023. The response took 17 working days which was outside of its published time target of 10 working days.
The resident escalated her complaint on 27 January 2023 as she had not received answers to her specific questions. The landlord contacted the resident on 30 January 2023 to request that she consider delaying the escalation of the complaint until the agreed visit to her property on 1 February 2023 had been completed by its surveyor and the contractor. This was inappropriate as it was not in accordance with this Service’s Complaint Handling Code (March 2022) which advises that landlords should not unreasonably refuse to escalate a complaint.
The landlord’s complaint procedure sets out its commitment to the Equality Act 2010 and the Public Sector Equality Duty. There is no evidence that this was considered during the complaint process to assess whether its working practices regarding the replacement of the living room and kitchen windows required amendment, including the management of dust to accommodate the resident’s particular circumstances.
The landlord responded at the final complaint stage on 9 March 2023. The landlord took 29 working days to respond to the resident’s complaint. This was again outside its published timescales.
The landlord upheld the complaint. However, it missed an opportunity to resolve the complaint to the resident’s satisfaction as the information it subsequently sent to the resident did not address her specific concerns and provided general information that was already available to the resident. This was not reasonable.
The landlord in its review of the complaint did not consider whether an award of compensation was appropriate for its delay in providing the information to the resident and for the misinformation given to her regarding the need to make a Freedom of Information request. The failure of the landlord to consider whether an offer of redress was appropriate and provide the required information within 2 weeks of its final response meant that it did not put things right and a finding of maladministration has been made.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s request for information about the replacement windows to the property.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

Within 4 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord should write to the resident to:
1. apologise for the service failures identified within this report;
2. answer her questions as stated in the final complaint response dated 9 March 2023.
Within 4 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord should pay the resident £300 compensation, broken down as follows:
1. £200 for its delay in providing the resident with the specific answers to her questions regarding the replacement windows to the property;
2. £100 for its complaint handling delays.
The landlord to provide evidence of compliance with these orders within 4 weeks of the date of this report.

Recommendations

If it has not already done so, the landlord is recommended to carry out a self-assessment against this Service’s Spotlight Report on Attitudes, respect and rights – relationship of equals (January 2024).