Newlon Housing Trust (201900742)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 201900742

Newlon Housing Trust

16 March 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

1. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of:

a)     The resident’s request for repairs to her fence.

b)     The associated complaint.

Background and summary of events

2. On 11 March 2019 the resident reported to the landlord that strong wind had blown down her fence and two posts had fallen.
3. On 15 March 2019, the resident asked the landlord to confirm when she would be contacted with an appointment, because the damaged fencing remained on her lawn.
4. The landlord replied on 21 March 2019 that the repair had a target of 20 working days for completion. It confirmed that it asked its contractor to make an appointment with the resident.
5. On 21 March 2019 the resident asked to raise a complaint because she was not contacted with an appointment and “every time” she raised a repair she had to pursue this. The resident asked to be compensated for the distress caused.
6. The landlord advised, on 27 March 2019, that its contractors assured that its target date of 8 April 2019 for the repair would be met; however, the fencing subcontractors were very busy due to adverse weather conditions. They would contact the resident that week to confirm an appointment.
7. The landlord’s fencing sub-contractor attended the property on 28 March 2019 and “took down dangerous fence made safe and stacked on site”. They noted that it would be worth renewing the full fence with concrete posts, so it did not need revisiting in the next five years.
8. On 1 April 2019 the resident expressed her dissatisfaction to the landlord that she felt its contractor was pressuring her to accept an immediate appointment, to enable the landlord to complete the repair within target, as it had delayed raising the repair works. The resident confirmed that she would be available to give access for the repairs on 11 and 12 April 2019.
9. The landlord replied on 4 April 2019 and said that the contractor’s account of the interaction differed, claiming that the resident was abusive, and the contractor was now refusing to attend to complete the works. It explained that bad weather conditions and a backlog of work may have contributed to the contractor contacting the resident two weeks after the repair was raised. The landlord advised that it asked that the repair was assigned to another contractor. It also confirmed that the timescales could be extended, if necessary, to accommodate further dates to fit around the resident’s availability. Finally, the landlord advised that it was unable to respond to the complaint yet because the repair to the garden fence was still outstanding and it aimed to respond within a further 10 working days.
10. Following contact from this Service on 15 April 2019, on 24 April 2019 the landlord said to the resident that the next appointment for the repair was on 30 April 2019. It advised that it aimed to respond to the complaint by 5 May 2019.
11. The resident replied on 25 April 2019. She said that she had not been consulted or asked whether 30 April 2019 was a convenient date. Nonetheless, the resident confirmed she would be available on 30 April 2019 and asked that the scope of the works matched the work that the contractor previously stated was necessary.
12. The landlord said on 26 April 2019 that it would confirm the details for the appointment but, on 29 April 2019, the resident said she received no details of the expected time of arrival, the expected time of duration of works, nor confirmation of work to be carried out the next day. There is no evidence that the landlord responded to this.
13. On 30 April 2019 the resident advised the landlord that the contractors had attended but did not receive appropriate instruction for the renewal of the whole fence. Furthermore, there was an issue with fly-tipped rubbish behind part of the fence to be replaced at the back of the garden, which backed onto an alleyway. The resident confirmed that she raised this with the local authority and she would keep the landlord posted to enable the renewal of the fence to be as “hindrance free” as possible and confirmed the correct scope of works with the contractors. Due to hospital appointments, the resident asked to be given as much notice as possible of the intended date of commencement of works.
14. The landlord confirmed on 1 May 2019 that the fencing replacement could not proceed until the alley was cleared of the rubbish, so the timeframes for this were extended to enable the rubbish to be removed. It confirmed that it would liaise with the resident regarding appointment dates once the alley was cleared.
15. In the landlord’s stage one complaint response, dated 1 May 2019, it confirmed that the repair was initially raised as a 20–working–day priority but this did not go ahead as planned due to bad weather causing a backlog of fence repairs and fly–tipped rubbish. It confirmed that the repair, which could take up to three days, could be completed when this rubbish was removed, and it would give the resident plenty of notice with proposed dates. The landlord offered the resident a £25 compensation voucher for any inconvenience caused and advised that, if she remained unhappy, the resident could escalate her complaint to be reviewed by its complaints panel.
16. On 16 May 2019 the resident refused the compensation offer as she did not feel this was proportionate and said she wanted to see a change in the repair reporting and managing process. The resident also confirmed that the rubbish had been removed from the alley.
17. In reply, on 17 May 2019, the landlord confirmed that it asked its contractor to arrange an appointment with the resident and confirmed that the resident may escalate her complaint, should she wish to proceed.
18. The resident enquired to the landlord on 20 May 2019 regarding the land ownership of the alley behind the fence, should the issue of fly tipping hinder any works to her garden/fencing in the future.
19. On 28 May 2019 the landlord said it had made a search at the Land Registry to answer the resident’s question. It said that it put the repair on pause, following the query about the alley, but was not sure if this was necessary as the rubbish had been cleared. It asked if the resident wanted contractors to contact her about an appointment to replace the fence at that time.
20. The resident explained on 31 May 2019 that the contractors accessed the alley to carry out the inspection and would need to access this for the fence replacement works to be carried out. She agreed that the repair did not need to be paused following her query and confirmed that she wanted the contractors to contact her as a matter of urgency to agree an appointment to replace the fencing. The resident commented that the open section of the fencing between her and her neighbours’ gardens adversely affected their privacy and security.
21. The Ombudsman has not seen any evidence of further correspondence until 10 July 2019 when the landlord apologised that the person responsible for arranging the repair could not respond before going on holiday. They asked the resident several questions regarding her garden and fence and the alley. The landlord attached a copy of the land registry plan and said it did not appear that there should not be public access to the alley, which joined two public roads. Once clear on “what repair is expected for the fencing and how the work is to be accessed”, the landlord said that they would instruct the contractor to proceed. Finally, the landlord confirmed that the complaint had not been escalated, but this option remained open for the resident.
22. On 12 July 2019 the resident expressed her dissatisfaction with the “unnecessary” and “previously answered questions”, confirming that there was no question of land ownership hindering works when the landlord replaced the fence in 2016, nor previously. The resident asked to escalate her complaint as she felt that she needed to be unreasonably involved in trying to progress the repair and give “readily available information”. She also explained that she would be having an operation on 7 August 2019 and may not be in a position to give access for the works to be completed on or around this time.
23. The landlord said, on 17 July 2019, that it was “glad to read” that the fence had been replaced and said its questions posed on 10 July 2019 were to help take forward the fencing job. This was later clarified to have been an error. The landlord confirmed that it had escalated the complaint and would arrange the papers for the complaints panel once any practical work for the fence was completed.
24. On 19 July 2019 the resident reiterated that the fence renewal was still outstanding and asked that an appointment was made in consideration of her access issues previously explained.
25. The repair for the fence was re-raised on 7 August 2019 and completed on 4 September 2019.
26. Thereafter, the resident and landlord corresponded regarding the panel review of the resident’s complaint.
27. The landlord’s complaint panel met on 6 December 2019, and the landlord sent its final response to the complaint on 20 December 2019.
28. In this response, the panel noted that a few weeks delay was caused by the blocked alley; however, this was resolved in two weeks, meaning it played a small part in the overall delay. The landlord acknowledged that the main cause of delay appeared to have been poor communication and “lack of follow through” of the work. It said that the resident should have been contacted earlier, after she reported the fence issue in March 2019, and it should have explained about the heavy demand on fencing jobs at the time. The landlord found that there was a breakdown in communication over the recommendation for the whole fence replacement made at the end of March in place of replacing just two panels, which caused further delays. Moving forward, the landlord confirmed it would pass on the need for “better communication and approval” to the teams concerned, based on the resident’s experience.
29. Further, the landlord agreed that it was “not satisfactory” for contractors to make no contact until the end of the standard 20–day target for repairs. It confirmed that it urged that its repairs team discussed with its contractors the advantage of early communication for a better resolution of reported issues and to keep the tenant better informed.
30. The landlord explained that it considered the photos the resident provided, which gave it an idea of the loss of privacy the resident experienced over the six months with the damaged two fence panels being removed. The landlord acknowledged that this exposed the resident and her neighbours’ gardens to each other and would have likely caused a loss of amenity.
31. The landlord apologised for the impact that delays caused the resident, noting that she requested at “the meeting” that the landlord decorate her front room and replace her flooring. The landlord noted that both requests were not related to the repair work that gave rise to the complaint and the cost involved would exceed the compensation it felt appropriate. The landlord noted that the resident was happy with the fencing work that was completed and offered her £150, which she may use towards any work she may like to arrange.
32. Finally, the landlord advised the resident that the complaint had exhausted its complaints process and how she may refer her complaint to this Service if she remained unhappy.

Assessment and findings

33. The resident’s tenancy agreement with the landlord does not explicitly stipulate that the landlord is responsible for the fence.  Because the tenancy is silent regarding this issue, this Service refers to the landlord’s repair policy, which says it is the landlord’s responsibility to keep in good repair the structure and exterior of the premises, including boundary walls and fences (where it is clear from the land registry entry that the specific boundary is the landlord’s responsibility). The landlord has accepted responsibility for the maintenance of the fence in question, and as such this Service will investigate the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of disrepair to the fence.
34. In line with its repairs policy, the landlord repairs fences that represent a trip hazard or security issue (where the property is on main road and the garden open to public etc.) and will aim to secure and make safe within 28 days. This does not appear to have been the case in this instance; however, the landlord attended to inspect the fence and ‘made safe’ by stacking damaged panels on site. Full replacement would usually be under planned, or long–term works and would be finished within three months or as part of programmed maintenance. Although, the landlord will deal with collapsed walls as a priority. 
35. It would have been reasonable, and in line with its repairs policy, for the landlord to replace the damaged panels first, to restore the resident’s privacy, and then carry out full fence replacement. This was not done, and there were as a result delays in the replacement of the full fence.
36. The Ombudsman cannot comment on what took place between the landlord’s contractor and the resident, and we are not making any judgements concerning the allegations raised by the contractor against the resident. However, the landlord could not compel its contractor to return to the property when they reported that they had been verbally abused. It was, therefore, appropriate for the landlord to arrange for another contractor to complete the work and this led to an unavoidable delay in completing the repair.
37. Whilst this and some other events resulting in the delays were outside of the landlord’s control, as acknowledged by the landlord (the fly tipping etc.), these issues only caused brief delays. By contrast, most of the delays were because of the landlord’s poor communication. The landlord putting the works on hold on 28 May 2019 appeared to be unnecessary and then it did not respond to the resident until July 2019, resulting in the works only being re-raised in August 2019. This was a service failure by the landlord.
38. Where there are admitted failings by a landlord, the Ombudsman’s role is to consider whether the redress offered by the landlord (an acknowledgment of its error, an apology, completing the fence works, and a compensation payment of £150) put things right and resolved the resident’s complaint satisfactorily in the circumstances. In considering this the Ombudsman takes into account whether the landlord’s offer of redress was in line with the Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles: be fair, put things right and learn from outcomes.
39. The landlord acted fairly in acknowledging its delays in replacing the fence and apologising to the resident. It put things right by completing the fence repair, communicating its learnings internally and offering £150 compensation.
40. The compensation award was in line with the Ombudsman’s own remedies guidance, published on our website. The landlord offered compensation that was proportionate to the distress and inconvenience experienced by the resident in relation to the landlord’s failings. The landlord demonstrated that it learnt from outcomes by discussing the findings internally as well as with its contractors, to avoid making similar errors in the future.
41. For the reasons set out above, the landlord has made redress to the resident which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, resolves the complaint about its handling of the fence repairs satisfactorily. In short, the measures taken by the landlord to redress what went wrong were proportionate to the impact that its failures had on the resident.

Complaint handling

42. However, the landlord also delayed in responding to the complaint at both stages of its complaints procedure. On 21 March 2019 the resident asked to raise a complaint and the landlord said that it would respond by 4 April 2019 but, on this day, it explained that it could not respond because the repair to the garden fence was still outstanding. The landlord sent its stage one response on 1 May 2019. In line with the landlord’s complaints policy, it should respond to stage one complaints within ten working days. Following the resident’s appeal/escalation of 12 July 2019, a panel meeting was held on 6 December 2019 and a complaint response sent soon after. Panel meetings for stage two complaints should be held within 30 days of the appeal, in line with the landlord’s complaints policy.
43. It is the Ombudsman’s established view that it is generally not good practice to put responding to a complaint on hold until repairs are completed. Instead, the landlord could still reasonably respond to the complaint before the repairs were completed and it could include a timescale for the repair to be carried out as part of its response to the complaint. The landlord did not meet the timeframes given in its complaints policy, especially the timescale for holding panel reviews after an appeal. The landlord delayed in holding the panel review for four months and did not acknowledge this failing in its complaint response.
44. The landlord should have identified and apologised for this error in its final response. It would also have been reasonable for it to have offered a compensation amount for the distress and inconvenience caused by this failing, much like its handling of the substantiative issue. However, the landlord did not do this and therefore there was service failure in its complaints handling.

Determination (decision)

45. In accordance with paragraph 55(b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord has offered reasonable redress for its handling of the resident’s request for repairs to her fence.
46. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman scheme, there was service failure in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Reasons

47. The landlord has identified and acknowledged its service failures relating to its handling of the fence repair and made a reasonable offer of compensation for this. However, it has also delayed in responding to the complaint at both stages of its complaints process and has not acknowledged or provided redress for this failing.

Orders

48. In light of the findings of this investigation, the landlord is ordered to:
49. Pay the resident £300 compensation (including the £150 already offered) within four weeks of the date of this determination.