Newham Council (201915965)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 201915965

Newham Council

4 December 2020


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 response to the resident’s request for updates about repairs needed to the estate.

Background and Summary of Events

  1. In August 2019, the resident and landlord arranged a walkabout around the estate to identify repairs needed. As there were a number of repairs required, the resident compiled a spreadsheet and asked the landlord to update it regularly about the progress of all the repairs. The landlord agreed to provide fortnightly updates. Over the following months, there were a number of emails and phone calls between the resident and landlord about the various repairs needed, and updates on those repairs.
  2. The resident complained to the landlord on 2 January 2020, stating that she had created a detailed spreadsheet in August 2019 to record and track repairs needed on the estate, and it was agreed that this would be updated and she should be kept informed on a fortnightly basis. However, that had not happened, and she had to continually chase for updates. The landlord acknowledged the complaint on 8 January 2020 and advised that it would aim to provide its response by 30 January 2020.
  3. On 5 February 2020, the landlord accepted that the resident’s initial complaint had not been dealt with in a timely matter, and so that parties agreed that the complaint would go straight to the second stage of the landlord’s complaints process. On 16 March 2020 the landlord provided its final response to the complaint, as follows:
    1. It noted that the resident’s concerns about outstanding repairs in the block had been raised on a number of occasions, and a walkabout around the estate had taken place with several parties on 14 January 2020. Issues with the block were identified, captured in a spreadsheet by the resident and provided to its Repairs Service;
    2. It had been agreed by the Repairs Service that the resident would be kept updated on a fortnightly basis with the status of the repairs identified. However, the Repairs Service failed to do so as they did not plan for the level of monitoring and updates needed in order to provide the resident with regular and accurate information on progress. Further, they did not consider at the time if it was appropriate to update the resident with details of other residents’ repairs;
    3. It accepted that it should have contacted the resident and negotiated appropriate ways to manage or meet her expectations;
    4. The Repairs Service agreed it was unrealistic for them to facilitate fortnightly updates for all the work being undertaken in the block, though it should be possible to provide the resident with information relating to her own property and the communal areas;
    5. To ensure that engagement was managed more effectively, it had arranged for future updates to be provided by, and discussed, with the Housing Liaison Officer for the area, and they would be in contact with the resident in the following days to arrange this;
    6. It accepted there had been delays in resolving many of the issues raised in relation to the block, and that the resident had not been kept informed of the situation. It apologised for this and offered £100 to recognise the time and trouble she had spent pursuing the matter.
  4. The resident brought her complaint to this Service, explaining that she had produced a report in August 2019 following a review of the estate, and created a spreadsheet to detail the concerns in communal areas. The landlord assigned a manager to provide her with updates on a fortnightly basis, but this stopped within a short period of time. She said that several attempts were made to obtain updates, but to no avail. She also said that no further updates had been provided as the Housing Liaison Officer had not contacted her.

Policies and procedures

  1. The landlord’s complaints policy states that:
    1. in some circumstances, compensation or a goodwill payment could be appropriate. A decision to pay compensation is usually only if there has been clear service failure, delay, injustice, effects or costs incurred;
    2. the landlord considers appropriate remedies taking into account clear advice and guidance from the Local Government & Social Care Ombudsman (LGSCO).
  2. The landlord’s repairs policy explains that it is responsible for repairs to the following communal areas: a lift; communal television aerial; door entry system; electronic barriers and gates; guttering; and a broken main entrance door of a block.

Assessment and Findings

  1. It is not known if all the repairs were identified in the walkabout that took place in August 2019, or if other residents had previously raised some/all of the outstanding repairs with the landlord prior to this. However, it is apparent that the resident wanted to help facilitate those repairs, no doubt with the best intentions, by being a single point of contact for the landlord. Whilst this was understandable, it was not appropriate for the resident to be the point of contact for repairs that did not concern either her property or the communal areas detailed in point 9 above, which the landlord has since accepted. It would also only be appropriate for the resident to be the point of contact for communal areas if she had raised the repair job. If the repair job was raised by a different resident, then it would be reasonable for that resident to expect to be kept updated by the landlord about the progress of that repair, unless they had given permission for the resident to receive updates on their behalf.
  2. When the resident sent emails to the landlord, she said that she was acting on behalf of the residents living on the estate. However, there was no written confirmation of this from the other residents. As a result, the landlord ought to have made it clear to the resident from the outset that it would only provide her with updates for repairs relating to her own property, or repairs for communal areas that she had raised. It failed to do this, and instead agreed to provide her with fortnightly updates on all the repairs raised for the estate. This was not appropriate, as the landlord would likely have been breaching data protection law and it did not effectively manage the resident’s expectations with regard to the landlord’s obligations to her. 
  3. The resident had compiled a spreadsheet with all the outstanding repairs and wanted the landlord to update it whenever progress had been made for each repair. The landlord was not obliged to do this (under the terms of the occupancy agreement or any policies), but it did agree to do so. However, it soon realised that it was not practical for it to provide the resident with fortnightly updates, given the number of repairs in question, and it therefore stopped providing the updates without informing the resident.
  4. It was not unreasonable for the landlord to stop providing updates to the resident via the spreadsheet she had compiled, since it was not obliged in the first place to update that document. The Ombudsman encourages social landlords to make the most effective use of the limited resources available to them and this Service that the administration required to update the resident in this way would have been disproportionate. 
  5. Nonetheless, since the landlord had agreed to provide updates to the resident in this way and therefore raised her expectations about this, when it decided to stop providing the updates, it ought to have told her this immediately. Its failure to do so no doubt led to a great deal of frustration on the resident’s part, as it meant that she had to email and telephone to obtain the updates se was expecting. This continued for a number of months, until the resident complained about the situation. It was only at this point that the landlord advised her that it could not update her on all the repairs, and the reasons why it had stopped updating her every fortnight.
  6. The communication from the landlord in respect of this situation was poor and could have been handled far better. If it had made the resident aware that it would no longer be providing her with fortnightly updates as soon as it had made that decision, it could have saved her a great deal of inconvenience over several months. The landlord has accepted that it should have contacted the resident much sooner and explained the situation to her regarding updates on the repairs. Given the level of inconvenience caused the resident, it would have been appropriate for the landlord to offer some form of financial redress to recognise this.
  7. The landlord’s compensation policy explains that it takes into account advice and guidance from the LGSCO. The remedies guidance from the LGSCO says that, where avoidable distress has been caused to someone, which would include raised expectations, a moderate compensation payment of between £100 to £300 should be made. Although the landlord’s offer of £100 compensation was within these amounts, given the length of time over which it failed to explain why it was not providing regular updates despite previously raising the resident’s expectations, it is considered that a higher compensation figure ought to be paid. A reasonable amount in the circumstances would be £200, as this would adequately reflect the level of inconvenience caused to the resident.
  8. Further, the landlord stated in its final response to the complaint that the Housing Liaison Officer for the area would be providing her with updates going forwards. That was a reasonable response to the resident’s desire to be kept updated about relevant repairs. However, the resident stated in her complaint to this Service that she had not heard from the Housing Liaison Officer. Therefore, if the landlord has not already done so, it is ordered that it arrange for the area’s Housing Liaison Officer to contact the resident about any outstanding repairs that relate to her property or to repairs raised by her in respect of communal areas.

Determination (decision)

  1. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Scheme, there was service failure by the landlord in respect of its response to the resident’s request for updates about repairs needed to the estate.

Reasons

  1. Although the resident had wanted to be the single point of contact for all the outstanding repairs on the estate, she did not have permission from all the other residents to act on their behalf. The landlord should therefore not have updated the resident about repairs for other residents’ properties.
  2. Whilst the landlord had initially agreed to update the spreadsheet compiled by the resident in respect of the outstanding repairs, it was not required to do so. It was therefore not unreasonable for it stop providing updates in this way once it realised that it had become unmanageable. However, it failed to tell the resident that it would no longer be providing her with regular updates, or the reasons for this. This was unreasonable, and meant that the resident became increasingly frustrated, as she was calling and emailing the landlord for updates on various repairs for several months.
  3. It is considered that the landlord’s actions caused the resident unnecessary inconvenience and frustration. Whilst it is recognised that the landlord accepts this and has offered £100 compensation, given the number of months over which the landlord failed to explain matters to the resident, it is considered that the compensation amount should be increased to £200 to recognise the level of detriment caused to the resident.

Orders

  1. The Ombudsman orders the landlord to:
    1. pay the resident £200 compensation to recognise the inconvenience it caused her as a result of its poor communication. If it has already paid the £100 previously offered to the resident, then it will only need to pay the remaining £100;
    2. arrange for the resident’s Housing Liaison Officer to contact her regarding any outstanding relevant repairs that relate to her property or to repairs raised by her in respect of communal areas, if they have not already done so.