Newlon Housing Trust (202006502)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202006502

Newlon Housing Trust

20 June 2022

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 reports about:
1. a boiler leak at his property;
2. redecoration works at his property;
3. repair works to his door.
The complaint is also about the landlord’s complaints handling.

Jurisdiction

What we can and cannot consider is called the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. This is governed by the Housing Ombudsman Scheme. When a complaint is brought to the Ombudsman, we must consider all the circumstances of the case as there are sometimes reasons why a complaint will not be investigated.
Paragraph 39(b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme notes as follows:

39. The Ombudsman will not investigate complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion:

b) are made within 8 weeks of having exhausted a social landlord’s complaints procedure.

It is evident that in March 2022, the resident raised a complaint relating to damage caused to his property following a boiler leak. The landlord provided a stage one response to this complaint in April 2022. Following this, the landlord has provided a stage two response on 16 June 2022.
After carefully considering all the evidence, in accordance with paragraph 39(b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the complaint relating to the boiler leaks is outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.
If the resident wishes to refer this complaint to this service, he may be able to do so after eight weeks has elapsed from the date of the landlord’s stage two response, or by referring the complaint via a designated person prior to this time period elapsing.

Background and summary of events

Background

The resident has been an assured tenant at the property of the landlord since 13 October 2014. The landlord is a registered provider of social housing.
The tenancy agreement states that the tenant is responsible for “decorating all internal parts as frequently as is necessary to keep them in good decorative order.” The tenancy agreement also states that the tenant must allow the landlord to access the property to carry out inspections, improvements, or any other works.
The landlord operates a vulnerable tenant policy. The policy notes that where a tenant is assessed as vulnerable due to “serious physical disabilities,” the landlord may offer to assist with “minor repairs or routine household maintenance tasks.”
At the time of the complaint, the landlord operated a two stage complaints procedure, where the stage two response was provided following a complaints panel review.
The landlord operates a responsive repairs policy. The policy notes that it will endeavour to complete all urgent and routine repairs for which it is responsible within 20 working days.

Summary of events

In January 2020, the resident reported that there were cracks in his hallway and living room ceilings following a “party” at his neighbour’s property above. The landlord has advised this service that it assessed the cracks and determined them to be ‘hairline’, and that it considered any rectification works necessary to be ‘decorative’ and not ‘repairs’, for which it was not responsible under the tenancy agreement. The landlord has also advised that it considered the resident to have been caused distress by the cracks. On this basis, it opted to carry out decorative works out of “goodwill.” It is not evident that any formal vulnerability assessment had been completed at this time.
Due to COVID-19 restrictions, these works were delayed until March 2020. Following the works, the resident expressed his dissatisfaction at the standard of the works and raised a formal complaint on 10 March 2020.
The landlord provided a stage one response on 27 March 2020. The landlord advised it had arranged for its contractor to return on 1 April 2020 to inspect if further works were necessary. It concluded by offering £25 compensation from its contractor for the poor standard of works, and an additional £30 compensation from the landlord for the inconvenience caused.
It is evident that the landlord’s contractors attended the property on 1 April 2020, but that the resident disagreed with the scope of works to be completed. Subsequently, the contractor’s left the property. In its internal communications, the landlord has noted that its position was that the resident refused access to the contractors.
On 15 April 2020, the landlord sought to rearrange an inspection, but advised that due to COVID-19 restrictions, it was only in a position to carry out emergency works, and so the further inspection would be delayed. It also provided the resident with a vulnerability self-assessment form to determine if there was any further assistance it could provide. It is not evident that the resident has returned this form.
On 15 July 2020, the landlord advised that it was now in a position to reattend. It also advised that the resident’s complaint had now been escalated to stage two.
The landlord’s internal notes from this period note that the resident wanted the ceilings to be smoother, holes in the walls where picture hooks had been to be filled, and for flaky paint on the woodwork to be redone. The landlord noted it had discussed the need to move furniture during the works.
On 1 August 2020, the resident advised that the landlord’s contractors had failed to attend. The landlord advised it would respond to this concern as part of its stage two response.
The landlord provided its stage two response on 28 September 2020, which included the following:
1. It noted that the resident had expressed concern that the property was uninhabitable due to the outstanding works. The landlord advised that its surveyor had confirmed that the works were decorative in nature and that the property was habitable. It also noted the resident’s dissatisfaction at having to move furniture, and acknowledged this would be disrupting, but necessary.
2. It noted it had discussed with the residents the works it would carry out and once the resident agreed, it could arrange a time.
3. It also noted the resident’s comments about the contractor’s missing an appointment and advised that the contractor’s account differed from the resident’s.
4. It nevertheless offered £20 compensation for the missed appointment, £50 for the continued delays to completing the works, and a further £50 for its delayed stage two response. It advised its original offer of £55 compensation was also available, meaning £175 total.
The resident declined the landlord’s offer of compensation and reiterated that he did not believe he could remain at the property and advised he had been living on a boat. He subsequently requested a new complaint. The landlord replied that it could not reopen the earlier complaint but could start a new complaint for the ongoing delays to the works.
On 15 October 2020, the landlord elaborated on its position regarding the habitability of the property. It noted that the resident had reported that he needed to sleep in an orthopaedic bed, and that due to having to move furniture for the works, he was unable to access it. The landlord advised it did not consider this to make the property uninhabitable and recommended that the resident took steps to move his furniture. The resident subsequently advised that the ongoing delays were causing him chronic pain and stress and was affecting his mental health.
Based on the landlord’s notes, it carried out a further inspection on 21 October 2020, during which the resident advised he was not satisfied with the contractor’s ability, and that the online reviews for the contractor were poor. He also requested that the entire ceiling be replastered. The landlord’s surveyor advised this was not required. The surveyor also noted that resident was demanding a very high standard of works, which the landlord described as “unreasonable.”
The landlord provided its further stage one response on 27 October 2020 regarding the ongoing delays. It noted that it had attended the resident’s property on 21 October 2020 and that it was currently arranging costings for the works. It advised that it would provide an update as to the date for the works by the end of the week.
The landlord provided an update on 16 November 2020, which included the following:
1. The landlord noted that since its initial attempt to carry out redecoration works, the resident had carried out his own works which had created additional works for the landlord.
2. It also noted the resident had been dissatisfied with its contractor’s work, and so offered £500 for the resident to arrange to complete the works instead.
The resident advised he did not accept this offer and that he considered the ceiling to be unsafe. He subsequently requested an escalation of his complaint.
The landlord provided its further stage two response on 24 December 2020, which included the following:
1. It advised that its surveyor had assessed the ceiling as safe, and that it had informed the resident of this during an inspection on 26 November 2020.
2. It reiterated that its attempts to carry out the redecoration works had been out of goodwill, and that its offer of £500 for the resident to arrange the works himself remained open.
3. It also advised that during its recent inspection, it had noted some repair works to his door were necessary, and requested the resident advise when he would be available for these works.
4. It further noted its response had been delayed, and so offered £50 compensation.
The resident raised an additional complaint in relation to the works to his door on 11 January 2021. The landlord provided its stage one response on 25 January 2021 which included the following:
1. The landlord noted that the resident had chased an update on 4 January 2021 but had not received a response.
2. It apologised for this and confirmed it had now raised a work order for the repair works to the door.
On 8 March 2021, the landlord contacted the resident and advised it still wished to resolve the issue regarding the redecorations. It offered for the resident to arrange a quote for the works, which it would then cover the cost of, even if it exceeded £500. The resident advised he was not satisfied with this offer.
The landlord also advised it had originally booked the door works for 5 February 2021, but this had been delayed due to COVID-19 restrictions. The resident subsequently requested his complaint be escalated.
On 17 March 2021, the landlord’s contractors attended to carry out repair works to the resident’s door, however, the resident refused them entry as they were unaware of required works to the door threshold. In its internal notes, the landlord noted the operatives should have been aware of this additional work, but that its position was that the resident should nevertheless have allowed the other works to continue. The landlord’s surveyor also noted that the threshold works “could NOT be considered a trip hazard.”
The landlord provided its stage two response in relation to the door works on 6 April 2021. It reiterated that the works had been delayed dur to COVID-19 restrictions, for which it apologised. It concluded by offering £50 compensation for its delay. It is evident that the repair works to the door were subsequently completed on or around 10 April 2021.
Following the period of the complaint, it is evident that the resident also reported a roof leak, which was also the subject of a stage one complaint. The landlord offered additional compensation and it is evident this leak was resolved on or around 15 October 2021.

Assessment and findings

Redecoration works

The tenancy agreement notes that the resident is responsible for redecoration works in his property. The landlord is responsible for repairs.
Following the party at his neighbour’s property, it is not disputed that cracks developed in his ceiling. The landlord then appropriately inspected the property to determine if there were any repair issues. Having determined the cracks were hairline, and therefore a decoration issue, the landlord nevertheless chose to carry out the redecoration works as it had noted the distress the issue had caused to the resident.
The landlord operated a vulnerable tenant policy which notes it may assist with minor maintenance tasks for vulnerable residents. While it is not evident that the resident had formally been assessed by the landlord as vulnerable, it was nevertheless good practice for it to offer assistance in the circumstances.
The Ombudsman agrees with the landlord’s position that it was not initially obligated to carry out these redecoration works. Having offered to do so, however, it created a reasonable expectation from the resident that the redecoration works would be carried out to a reasonable standard.
What constitutes a reasonable standard is somewhat subjective. In such circumstances, it is reasonable for the landlord to rely on the expert opinion of its surveyor to assess the standard of redecoration works.
Following the initial works, the resident expressed his dissatisfaction with the standard of the works, noting the painting was streaky, flaky, and uneven. In such circumstances, where a formal complaint has been made, the Ombudsman would expect a landlord to initially assess the standard of works as part of an investigation into the complaint. It is not evident that the landlord did this, instead, it provided a stage one response and offered compensation for inconvenience prior to having inspected the works. Given, however, that there were issues with COVID-19 restrictions during this period, and that it did arrange for a further inspection to occur as soon as possible after its resposne, this failure to investigate prior to the response does not amount to service failure on this occasion.
It is evident that the landlord’s contractors attended in April 2020 to rectify the redecoration works. The resident subsequently refused access has he considered a greater amount of works were required. It would have been helpful had there been clarification as to the exact scope of the works prior to the attendance of the contractors. It was nevertheless reasonable, however, for the contractors to attempt some of the works at the earliest opportunity given the COVID-19 delays, even if there were further discussions necessary about additional works.
It is the Ombudsman’s position that during periods of COVID-19 restrictions, it was reasonable for landlords to offer a reduced service on the basis of safety and staffing issues, and only completing emergency repairs during these periods was reasonable.
Following its initial attempt to complete works in April 2020, the landlord appropriately advised it would carry out a further inspection. It also appropriately advised that this inspection may be delayed due to COVID-19 restrictions. Following the easing of restrictions, the landlord appropriately contacted the resident in July 2020 to arrange the further inspection.
During the further inspection, the landlord appropriately agreed the scope of works with the resident. It subsequently arranged for its contractor to attend in August 2020, however, the resident advised they did not attend. As part of its investigation into this concern, the landlord’s internal notes indicated that the contractors attended but there was no answer at the resident’s intercom. The landlord nevertheless appropriately offered £20 compensation in favour of the resident’s position that the contractors failed to attend. This amount was in line with what the Ombudsman would expect for a failed attendance.
While the landlord operates a repairs policy with prescribed timeframes for works, given that these works were not ‘repairs’, but redecorations out of the goodwill of the landlord, these timeframes would not apply. The Ombudsman would nevertheless expect these works to be completed within a reasonable timeframe. What is reasonable will depend on the circumstances, and as noted above, the Ombudsman considers it reasonable for there to have been delays to non-emergency works during periods of COVID-19 restrictions. In its stage two response, however, the landlord recognised that the delays have caused frustration for the resident, despite the legitimate reason for the delays. It subsequently chose to exercise its discretion and offer compensation of £50 for the delays, in addition to its earlier compensation of £55. In the Ombudsman’s opinion, it would have been justifiable to have dismissed the delays, and so this offer of compensation amounts to reasonable redress for the delays to the works at this point of the complaint.
The tenancy agreement also notes that the resident is responsible for providing access to carry out works. In practice, this includes moving furniture to allow access to areas for works. The landlord is not responsible for choosing what type of furniture the resident keeps, and so it is reasonable that the landlord is not responsible for moving furniture.
It is evident from the landlord’s notes that in or around July 2020, it advised the resident that furniture would need to be moved in order to complete the works. The resident has advised this service that it took a considerable effort to move the furniture, and that due to the antique nature of the furniture, it was inconvenient to continually move it back and forth. As a result, the resident chose to leave the furniture cleared from the workspace during the period of delays to the works, which caused him inconvenience in accessing his bedroom. The resident has further advised that on this basis he has chosen to live away from the property at his own expense.
It is evident the resident informed his concerns about habitability to the landlord, which it addressed in its stage two response in September 2020. The landlord advised that its expert surveyor had confirmed the works were decorative in nature and that the property was habitable. The landlord also appropriately sympathised with the resident that moving the furniture was disrupting for him, but necessary for the works.
Following this, the landlord has repeated on a number of occasions its position that it considered the property to be habitable. In or around November 2020, the resident advised he considered his ceiling to be unsafe, following which the landlord, in no uncertain terms, advised that its surveyor had found the ceiling to be safe and that the property was habitable.
The Ombudsman agrees with the landlord’s position, and there has been no evidence presented to indicate the property was unsafe or uninhabitable. It is a requirement under the tenancy agreement that the resident provide access for works, which would include moving the resident’s furniture. While it was inconvenient that there were delays to the works, this did not fundamentally prevent the resident from moving the furniture back. The Ombudsman further notes that the landlord made an attempt to assess the resident’s vulnerability by providing him with the necessary forms to complete. This may have led to the landlord assisting with moving the furniture but given that it is not evident these forms were returned, it was reasonable for the landlord not to have offered to move the furniture.
The landlord made a further assessment of the required works in October 2020, during which, the resident expressed his concerns about the ability of the contractors. The landlord’s surveyor also noted that the resident had made some repairs himself, which had altered the nature of the works. The surveyor also assessed some of the requested works as unnecessary. As noted above, the measure of when works are of a reasonable standard is somewhat subjective, and it is evident that the resident’s and the surveyor’s assessment differed. On this basis, it was reasonable for the landlord to consider and alternative method to complete the works to the satisfaction of the resident. Its subsequent offer to provide £500 towards the completion of the works that the resident was to arrange himself was a reasonable attempt to solve the resident’s concerns about its contractor, and for the resident to have control of the standard of works. The landlord also appropriately reiterated this offer in December 2020.
Given that the issue went unresolved, the landlord appropriately attempted a further offer, this time removing the limit on the amount the works could cost if the resident arranged them himself. Given that the landlord had raised the resident’s expectations that it would carry out these redecoration works (despite not being initially obligated to), but that the parties were unable to agree on the standard of works require, and given that the resident was dissatisfied with the ability of the contractors, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, this unlimited offer to fund works arranged by the resident to his satisfaction represented a reasonable attempt by the landlord to resolve the issue.
In summary, while there have been delays to the works being completed, this was due in a large part to COVID-19 restrictions, which were reasonable in the circumstances and communicated to the resident. In addition to this, the landlord has offered £105 for the inconvenience these delays have caused. It has also appropriately used its discretion to offer a further £20 compensation for a missed appointment. These offers of compensation, in addition to its offer to pay for any quote that the resident arranged for the outstanding decoration works, amounted to reasonable redress in the circumstances.
The resident has advised he has not accepted this offer, and so a recommendation has been made below that the landlord reiterate its offer of compensation. The Ombudsman is aware that further repair issues at the property may have affected the nature of the outstanding decoration works, and so an additional recommendation has been made that the landlord provide an update as to its position regarding the completion of the outstanding decoration works.

Door works

The landlord operates a repairs policy, which notes that routine repairs should be completed within 20 working days. As noted above, however, during periods of COVID-19 restrictions, it was reasonable for there to have been delays to the landlord’s service delivery of routine repairs, where this was effectively communicated to the resident.
As part of its inspection of the property in November 2020 in relation to the redecoration works discussed above, the landlord identified some repairs required to an internal door at the resident’s property, which included works to the hinges, and the room threshold. Having identified this, the landlord requested the resident contact it to arrange a suitable time to complete the repairs. This service has not been provided with evident to suggest a time was subsequently agreed.
It is not disputed that on 4 January 2021, the resident chased an update regarding this repair. Whether a repair had been booked in or not at this point, the landlord subsequently failed to provide an update, leading the resident to chase it up again, and make a formal complaint.
In its stage one response on 25 January 2021, the landlord appropriately acknowledged its failure to provide an update, for which it apologised. It also appropriately confirmed it had now arranged for the works.
The works were booked in for 5 February 2021, however, once again due to COVID-19 restrictions, these were pushed back. On 17 March 2021, the landlord’s contractors attended to carry out the repair works, however, it is evident that they had not been instructed in relation to the threshold repair, leading to the resident refusing them access.
While it was evidently an error from the landlord in not giving the contractors the full instructions, meaning it was possible that element of the repairs would have been delayed if not identified by the contractors when working. It was nevertheless reasonable for it to have arranged for it to complete some of the works, and the resident’s refusal to allow access caused an additional delay to this element of the works, for which the landlord is not responsible.
Additionally, it is evident that the resident raised concerns about the threshold works constituting a trip hazard, however, the landlord’s surveyor assessed this and determined this was not the case. In its stage two response 6 April 2021, however, the landlord failed to provide this position despite the formal response being an appropriate opportunity to do this.
In summary, the landlord’s initial failure to respond to the resident’s request for an update, along with its failure to correctly instruct its repairs contractor would amount to service failure. The landlord’s offer of £50 compensation in relation to the inconvenience caused by the delays was, however, in line with what the Ombudsman would expect in the circumstances, and in the Ombudsman’s opinion, amounted to reasonable redress of this element of the complaint.

Complaints handling

At the time of the complaint, the landlord operated a two stage complaints policy, where the stage two response was conducted by a review panel, which included two resident members. This service has not been provided with a copy of the complaints policy from the time of the complaint, and so the time period in which responses must be provided cannot be determined.
As part of its stage two response in September 2020, the landlord acknowledged that its response had been delayed. The Ombudsman accepts that responses can be delayed, especially where additional investigations are required, and would consider such delays to be reasonable where this is adequately communicated to a resident.
It is not evident that the landlord communicated in advance that its response would be delayed, and so it was appropriate it offered an apology for the delay, along with an offer of £50 compensation.
Following the stage two response, the resident advised he wished to continue the complaint. The landlord subsequently advised that the stage two response was the final stage of its internal complaints procedure for that element of the complaint, and that it could not be reopened. This approach is in line with what the Ombudsman would expect. Given, however, that the issues with the redecoration works were ongoing, it was appropriate that the landlord instead opened a new complaint for the delays starting at the end of the previous complaint.
This complaint was progressed to stage two and once again, it is evident that the landlord’s further stage two response in December 2020 was delayed, without providing reasonable warning of the delay to the resident. Once again, it was appropriate therefore that the landlord offered £50 compensation for this additional delay.
The Ombudsman notes that the landlord has now changed its complaints policy so that a senior member of staff responds at stage two instead of a review panel. This is in line with Ombudsman guidance and avoids delays related to assembling such a panel.
In summary, it is clear that the landlord’s stage two responses were delayed beyond what was reasonable without giving the resident notice of the delays. This would amount to service failure in the circumstances. The landlord appropriately acknowledged and apologised for these delays and offered a total of £100 compensation, which in the Ombudsman’s opinion, amounted to reasonable redress in the circumstances.
The Ombudsman has noted the resident’s assertion that the issues complained about have impacted his health. While this may be the case, it is beyond the expertise of this service to reasonably determine a causal link between the landlord’s actions (or lack of) and the deterioration of the resident’s wellbeing. The Ombudsman has therefore made no comments in relation to this. Should the resident wish to pursue this matter, legal advice will need to be sought.

Determination (decision)

As noted above, in accordance with paragraph 39(b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the complaint relating to the boiler leak at the resident’s property is outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.
In accordance with paragraph 55(b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, and in the Ombudsman’s opinion, there was reasonable redress offered by the landlord for its service failure in respect of the complaints regarding:
1. redecoration works at the resident’s property;
2. repair works to the resident’s door;
3. its complaints handling.

Reasons

Redecoration works

Having raised the resident’s expectations that the works would be carried out, there were multiple delays to the works caused by COVID-19 restrictions. The landlord appropriately identified this had nevertheless caused distress to the resident and offered compensation to reflect this distress. This, in addition to its offer to fund the resident arranging his own works, amounted to reasonable redress in the circumstances.

Door works

As with above, while the delays to the works were a result of COVID-19 restrictions, the landlord failed to provide an update following the resident’s request, and also failed to correctly instruct its contractors regarding the scope of the works. This amounted to service failure. The landlord identified this in its formal response and offered an appropriate amount of compensation, which reasonably redressed this element of the complaint.

Complaints handling

The landlord failed to provide its stage two responses within a reasonable time and failed to keep the resident updated about its delays. It was appropriate therefore that it apologised and offered compensation to reflect the distress caused by these delays.

Recommendations

The landlord to write to the resident within 4 weeks of the date of this determination and include the following, if it hasn’t already:
1. reiterate its offer of compensation for each complaint, being £225 in total;
2. provide an update as to its position on completing the outstanding redecoration works, and whether its offer for the resident to arrange his own works still stands.