Nottingham City Council (202213831)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202213831

Nottingham City Council

30 November 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

The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of:
1. The resident’s concerns relating to the retrofit improvement to his property; and
2. The associated complaint.

Background

The resident occupies a property under a secure tenancy commencing on 17 September 2012. The property is a three-bedroom house. The resident’s household includes dependent children and various vulnerabilities including physical and mental vulnerabilities such as respiratory conditions, chronic back pain, and agoraphobia.
The resident’s landlord is Nottingham City Council, and the property is managed by Nottingham City Homes. On 30 March 2020, Nottingham City Council’s energy department was granted funding by central government to implement energy-efficient measures to achieve net zero standards and reduce fuel poverty.
The energy department chose to use some of this funding on its social housing. Therefore, Nottingham City Council is responsible for the administration of the funding and Nottingham City Homes is responsible for delivering the works against the agreement.
In March 2021, the resident was made aware that his home was part of the selection of houses that were to be included within the scope of the funding. The landlord provided the resident with a bespoke schedule of works for his property and said that it would provide the following improvements:
1. Underfloor insulation.
2. Bath wall works.
3. Loft insulation.
4. Kitchen ventilation.
5. External wall insulation.
6. Heating works.
7. Roofing works.
The resident raised concerns about the schedule of work as early as November 2020. However, these communications were with a separate department of the local authority. The evidence shows between August and October 2021, the landlord conducted a series of meetings with the resident to address his concerns, however, a resolution was not achieved between the parties.
On 17 March 2022 the landlord’s solicitor wrote to the resident explaining that, if the resident did not respond to the landlord by 25 March 2022, then no further work would be offered under the project. The resident did not respond to the landlord and on 11 May 2022, the landlord confirmed in writing that the resident’s home had been removed from the project.
The resident lodged a formal complaint on 23 March 2022 because:
1. He did not feel he was listened to or that the landlord responded to his concerns.
2. The contractors had damaged his property and he had not been compensated.
3. The contractors had attended the property without an appointment and had not completed former works to a satisfactory standard.
4. He wished to have the funding issued directly to him to project manage and choose the energy-efficient measures of his choosing.
The landlord did not uphold the resident’s complaint as it had offered to reimburse him for the provable damage to his property, but the resident had not provided evidence for it to do so. It said it had contacted him about progressing the works and provided him with extensions to decide whether his property remained within the project. It had also told him that it was unable to issue the funding directly to him because of the restrictions in the grant agreement.
The resident asked to escalate his complaint on 25 May 2022 because he had been promised a kitchen upgrade that the landlord would no longer provide. In its final response, the landlord said that a kitchen upgrade fell within its cyclical schedule and that it was due for replacement in 2036. It also offered him £60 for the damage to his property.

Assessment and findings

Jurisdiction

The Housing Ombudsman Scheme states in paragraph 41(d) that “The Ombudsman cannot consider complaints, which in the Ombudsman’s opinion concern matters in respect of Local Housing Authorities in England which do not relate to their provision or management of social housing, or the management of dwellings which they own and let on a long lease.”
The resident’s complaint included a question over the administration of the grant funding for other energy efficiency measures as well as a request to issue funding directly to the resident and/or allow him to project manage the works.
The grant funding was provided to, administered, and managed by the energy services department. The housing services department carried out the agreed works under the grant funding agreement and applied to the energy services department for payment of the services. This means that the question of how the funding was administered was not a housing services function therefore this element of the complaint has not been considered.
The resident had communications with the energy services department in November 2020 which may have resulted in the use of the corporate complaint procedure. This was handled by the energy services department of the local authority and did not relate to the provision of social housing. This means that these communications have not been considered as part of this determination.
The resident’s complaint included how the landlord handled queries about his right-to-buy application.
Paragraph 42(j) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme states: “The Ombudsman may not consider complaints, which in the Ombudsman’s opinion fall properly within the jurisdiction of another Ombudsman.” This element of the resident’s complaint falls within the jurisdiction of the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman and has not been considered as part of this determination.

The scope and communication of the improvement works

Landlords in England and Wales are generally not obligated to make improvements to properties beyond maintaining the property’s habitability and addressing necessary repairs. This is also the case for major improvements for non-essential enhancements.
Between 28 March 2021 and 20 May 2021, the landlord intended to carry out the works detailed in paragraph 5. The resident told this service that some of the works were started but later withdrawn or left incomplete. The landlord met with the resident on 10 August 2021 and 15 October 2021 and communicated with the resident on 14 September 2021, 28 September 2021 and 28 March 2022. These were to explain that it wanted to complete the works due under the project and offered various options on how to do this to minimise the disruption to the resident and his household.
It also wrote to the resident on 17 March 2022, explaining that the works were subject to the scope of the grant agreement and time-limited. It also said if it did not receive further consent from the resident to continue with the improvement works it would withdraw his property from the project. On 11 May 2022, it wrote to the resident to explain that it had not received a response from him, and it had removed his property from the project.
The Ombudsman considers that the landlord communicated clearly and effectively about its intentions to continue to carry out the works within the scope of the project. It also answered the resident’s queries both in writing and through meetings to allay his concerns. Additionally, it provided him opportunities to engage with the project works up until it was no longer able to due to the time constraints set out in the grant funding agreement. Therefore, the Ombudsman can find no fault in the way the landlord handled this element of the complaint.
On 17 March 2022, the landlord wrote to the resident to get a response on whether the resident wanted the work to continue. It explained that because some of the remaining works required scaffolding, it would, by “special concession” install a new roof at the same time. However, the landlord stated that should a right-to-buy application be submitted during this period, it would withdraw the concession. The landlord said that it did not receive any communication from the resident, and it concluded that the additional roofing works were not required and therefore it withdrew this offer.
The Ombudsman considers that the landlord had brought forward cyclical improvement works, that it would not ordinarily consider undertaking earlier than its major works priorities dictated. Therefore, the landlord went beyond its responsibilities in offering a concession to the resident. It was also clear that this would be withdrawn should the resident not provide consent for the works or respond to it. As the resident did not respond to or provide consent to the landlord, the Ombudsman can find no fault with rescinding the additional roofing works.
The resident explained in his stage 2 escalation that he was promised a kitchen upgrade and that it had subsequently been cancelled. The landlord responded by explaining this type of work would fall under its cyclical schedule and that the resident’s kitchen was not due for an upgrade for a considerable amount of time. There was no evidence provided to this Service that a kitchen upgrade had been agreed to be brought forward by the landlord.
Social landlords have limited resources and are expected to manage funds responsibly, to the benefit of all their residents. In view of this, landlords are expected to have a cyclical schedule for major works across their stock portfolio. It is therefore at the discretion of the landlord to review and manage the priorities of its housing needs relating to major works and to decide which works are required and at which stage.
The Ombudsman considers that the landlord responded reasonably to this element of the resident’s complaint. This is because it explained to the resident the type of improvement a kitchen upgrade fell under as well as when his kitchen would be due for an upgrade, according to its cyclical schedule. Although landlords are expected to be alert to repairs and deal with these accordingly, it was under no obligation to bring improvement work forward. Therefore, the Ombudsman can find no fault with this element of the complaint.

How the improvement works were carried out

The resident reported to the landlord in both his informal correspondence to the landlord and his formal complaint, that the works carried out had been unsatisfactory and that contractors had missed appointments or attended the property without prior notice.
The landlord did not provide any records relating to its investigations into this matter. The records available to this Service suggest that this was initially raised by the resident in November 2020 through a separate complaint that was not made to the housing services department but to the energy services department of the local authority.
The Ombudsman expects landlords to maintain a robust record of contacts and repairs. This is because clear, accurate, and easily accessible records provide an audit trail and enhance landlords’ abilities to identify and respond to problems when they arise. As these records have not been provided to this Service, we have been unable to provide an opinion on this element of the complaint. The Ombudsman also considers this to be a failure in record keeping and/or sharing the relevant information with this Service and is maladministration.

Compensation for damaged items

The landlord’s discretionary compensation policy states the circumstances it will consider compensation are when “it has not acted fairly or properly in the circumstances” or “it failed to meet its own service targets or keep the customer informed throughout the process.” It also states that compensation will not be considered “for planned improvements agreed with the customer” or “the loss or damage related to a non-essential item which should be reasonably covered by contents insurance such as an ornament.”
The resident’s tenancy agreement states in clause 4.4. that [the landlord] “will not provide any compensation or carry out work to reinstate decorations if they are affected by maintenance or improvement works.” The Ombudsman notes this is not compatible with the decisions in Bradley v Chorley (1985) and Vukelic v Hammersmith & Fulham LBC [2003] EWHC 188, LAG Nov 03 – so the landlord should review this in respect of decorations.
The resident had explained in his complaint that his Sky TV subscription was interrupted, and workmen had broken an ornament. At both stages of the complaint process, the landlord offered to reimburse the resident for both. It asked the resident to provide evidence of the cost for a like-for-like ornament so that it could make an offer to him. It said that the resident had not provided this information to it and later offered a payment of £30 for the ornament and £30 for the disruption to the Sky TV subscription.
The Ombudsman considers that the landlord acted reasonably in the circumstances, offering to compensate the resident for the alleged damage he reported to his property during the improvement works. The Ombudsman’s view is that although it was not required to, it also acted outside of its normal practices regarding the damage, and this was fair and reasonable. Therefore, the Ombudsman can find no fault in this element of the resident’s complaint.

Complaint handling

The Complaint Handling Code (‘the Code’) states that “landlords must address all points raised in the complaint and provide clear reasons for any decisions.”
The resident lodged his formal complaint on 23 March 2022. The original complaint is listed in the landlord’s complaint form and refers to a previous complaint that sat with the energy services department. This document states that part of the complaint was that the resident was unhappy with the service and workmanship of the contractors. However, when the landlord issued its stage 1 response on 29 March 2022, it did not address this issue.
As this element formed part of the formal complaint raised to the landlord, the Ombudsman would have expected the landlord to have addressed this in its complaint response. Although its stage 2 response states that the remaining elements of the complaint were resolved satisfactorily before the formal response was issued, the stage 1 response failed to address this element of the complaint despite listing it as part of the original complaint. There has been no evidence presented to this Service that indicates that the resident felt that this element of his complaint had been answered or resolved.
The Ombudsman expects landlords to investigate all elements of a complaint and to respond clearly to residents with its findings. There is no evidence that a subsequent investigation into this complaint point occurred. Equally, if a landlord intends to exclude an element of a complaint, the Ombudsman expects this to be communicated to the resident with the reasons why.
There is no evidence that this happened, and this was maladministration. This meant that the resident’s complaint had not been fully addressed which is a failure to meet the objectives of the complaint process and the practices expected under the Code.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration with the way the landlord handled the resident’s concerns relating to the retrofit improvement to his property.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration in the way the landlord handled the resident’s complaint.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

Within 28 days of this determination, the Ombudsman orders the landlord to:
1. Apologise to the resident in writing for the failures identified in this determination.
2. Pay the resident £250 compensation in recognition of the failures found in this determination consisting of:
  1. £150 for its failure to address the resident’s concerns relating to the workmanship and conduct of its contractors in carrying out the project-related works in its complaints process.
  2. £100 for its failure in record keeping.
3. Review its policy on damage to decorations.