London Borough of Redbridge (202223569)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202223569

London Borough of Redbridge

21 August 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 complaint concerns:
   1. The landlord’s handling of the replacement of the property’s front door.
   2. The associated formal complaint into the issue.

Background

2. The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord. The landlord is a local authority. The property is a flat in a communal building.
3. The resident had been attempting to get the front door of the property replaced by the landlord for several years. On 1 April 2022, the resident wrote to the landlord and raised a formal complaint into the issue. He described the elements of the complaint as:
   1. He received a letter in 2018 informing him that his front door was due to be replaced and asking what type of new door he wanted. Despite completing the attached form, the door was not replaced.
   2. He received poor communication from the landlord when chasing up the status of the door replacement.
   3. In 2020 he noticed other properties were having their front doors replaced. He contacted the landlord to ask what was happening with his front door and was informed that there had been a delay due to the Covid-19 pandemic and national lockdowns. The resident disputed this, as other properties had their doors replaced during the pandemic.
   4. He experienced a break-in to his property in 2021 and believed that the condition of his front door compared to the condition of the new front doors on neighbouring properties had caused his property to be targeted.
   5. His property was now the only flat in the building without a new front door and he had not been given a date as to when it would be replaced.
4. The landlord sent a stage one complaint response to the resident on 8 April 2022, then a stage two complaint response on 31 October 2022. In its responses, the landlord
   1. Apologised for the delay in arranging for the front door to be replaced. The landlord explained that over 300 properties were in the same position and assured the tenant that his property was not singled out. It also apologised for the poor communication the resident experienced during this period.
   2. Confirmed that the resident’s property had been added to the upcoming door replacement programme and that its contractor would be writing to the properties in the programme in the next few weeks to explain how the work would proceed.
   3. Advised the resident to report any repairs required to the current front door as a result of the break-in and its contractor would arrange an inspection.
   4. Apologised for the delay in providing its stage two complaint response.
5. In referring the case to this Service, the resident stated that the front door was replaced in May 2023. He described the outstanding issues of the complaint as the landlord had not properly explained the reasons why there was such a long delay in it replacing the door and that it should have paid compensation in recognition of the inconvenience the delay had caused.

Assessment and findings

Relevant policies and procedures

6. The landlord’s repairs handbook confirms that it is its responsibility to ensure that its properties meet the Decent Homes Standard and all essential elements are in an acceptable standard. External doors are considered an essential element. The handbook explains that the landlord has an ongoing capital programme in place to replace elements of its properties according to their age and condition.
7. The landlord operates a two-stage complaints process. When a complaint is received, the landlord aims to provide a response at stage one within ten working days. If the complainant is dissatisfied with the response, they can request an escalation of the complaint to the next stage. The landlord will then undertake a review of the complaint and provide a stage two response within 20 working days. This will be the landlord’s final response to the complaint.
8. The landlord’s compensation policy states that it will consider offering a complainant compensation for their time and trouble in circumstances where it has not taken reasonable steps to address the issue, it did not investigate the complaint properly or appropriate remedies were not offered at an earlier stage. The landlord also states that it will consider offering compensation to a resident for the inconvenience caused in having to raise a complaint in order to resolve the issue.

Replacement of the front door

9. When the resident informed the landlord of his dissatisfaction with its delays in replacing the door, it had a duty to respond to the matter in line with the obligations set out in its published policies and procedures.
10. The evidence provided by the landlord for this case states that the resident’s door was originally added to the 2018/19 planned work programme but this did not go ahead due to supply chain issues. The resident’s property was then due to be added to the next-door replacement programme. However, changes to government legislation relating to fire doors meant that all doors located on floors of buildings 11 metres high or above needed to be prioritised and replaced. As the resident’s property was lower than 11 metres, it was not included on the current programme. On receipt of the resident’s complaint the landlord’s asset manager arranged to have the resident’s front door replaced during the current programme on an ad-hoc basis by its contractor.
11. The landlord’s door replacement programme involves several hundred different properties having their doors replaced. As such, it is not unreasonable for delays to occur as a result of supply chain issues, changes in legislation and the Covid-19 pandemic causing a backlog of non-emergency work to build up.  However, there is no evidence that the landlord informed the resident at the time of the reasons why the replacement of his door had been delayed. Moreover, while the landlord apologised and arranged for the door to be replaced in response to the complaint, it did not explain to the resident why the delays had occurred in either of the complaint responses it sent.
12. Therefore, there has been maladministration by the landlord in its communication with the resident while the door replacement was outstanding. There was also maladministration in how it responded to this element in its complaint responses as it did not explain why the replacement was delayed, and it did not offer compensation for the resident’s time and trouble in line with its compensation policy detailed above. Therefore, in order to fully resolve the complaint, it would be appropriate for the landlord to compensate the resident.
13. The Ombudsman’s own remedies guidance (which is available on our website) suggests a payment of £100 to £600 in cases of considerable service failure or maladministration by a landlord. This includes distress and inconvenience, time and trouble, disappointment, loss of confidence, and delays in getting matters resolved. Therefore, a payment of £300 that recognised the significant time, trouble and inconvenience caused to the resident by the landlord’s failure to explain the reasons for the delay in replacing the door and having to raise a complaint to resolve the issue would be appropriate in the circumstances.
14. The resident also highlighted the condition of the front door before it was replaced and his belief that this was a contributing factor to a break-in to his property. As part of its evidence, the landlord has provided the repair logs for the property. This shows that an out-of-hours appointment was raised on 15 March 2021 to “make safe the front door following a forced entry”. This was marked as completed on 16 March 2021. The repair logs have no other reports relating to the condition of the front door. Therefore, there is no evidence of service failure for this element of the resident’s complaint as the landlord responded appropriately to the resident’s reports of damage to the door following the break-in and no other reports were made by the resident either before the break-in occurred or after it relating to the condition of the door prior to its replacement.

The landlord’s complaint handling

15. The landlord did not follow its complaint policy at stage two of the complaints process. The resident first stated his dissatisfaction with the stage one response on 3 May 2022. The landlord stated that it would respond to the outstanding issues highlighted by the resident by 10 May 2022. However, the resident received no further contact from the landlord until he requested an escalation of the complaint on 26 September 2022.
16. Therefore, there has been maladministration by the landlord in its complaint handling and further compensation is warranted to recognise the significant delay and inconvenience caused to the resident in his attempts to progress the complaint.
17. In line with the remedies guidance detailed above, it would be appropriate for the landlord to pay £150 compensation for the four-month delay in responding to the resident’s outstanding issues from its stage one response and for the time and trouble that this caused to the resident.

Determination

18. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in respect of how it handled the replacement of the front door. 
19. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in respect of its complaint handling.

Orders

20. The landlord is ordered to pay to the resident a total amount of £450 in compensation, comprised of:
    1. £300 for the delays and poor communication during the period the door replacement was outstanding.
    2. £150 for its poor complaint handling.
21. This payment should be made within four weeks of the date of this report. The landlord should update this Service when payment has been made. It is the Ombudsman’s position that compensation awarded by this Service should be treated separately from any financial arrangements between the landlord and resident and should not be offset against any arrears.