Royal Borough Of Greenwich (202219125)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202219125

Royal Borough Of Greenwich

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

This complaint is about the landlord’s handling of:
1. The resident’s reports of defective windows and doors, and the resulting cold temperature in his property.
2. The resident’s reports of problems with his kitchen, including:
  1. the kitchen being unsuitable for his needs;
  2. items in the kitchen having sharp edges, which he said made it unsafe.
This investigation has also considered the landlord’s handling of the associated complaint.

Background

The resident is a secure tenant of the landlord. The tenancy started on 13 November 2017. The property is a one-bed bungalow.
The resident is disabled and lives with a number of physical and mental health conditions, including COPD, severe asthma, and severe anxiety, which the landlord is aware of. The resident has told the Ombudsman that his health issues are exacerbated by cold temperatures.

Policies and Procedures

The landlord is responsible for maintaining the structure and exterior of the property, including walls, windows and external doors. The landlord’s repairs policy sets out the expected timescales for repairs:
1. Emergency repairs will be completed within 2 hours.
2. Urgent repairs will be completed within 1 to 5 working days.
3. Non-urgent repairs will be completed within 20 working days.
The Decent Homes Standard is a standard for social housing introduced by the Government, which advises that properties should, amongst other things, provide a reasonable degree of thermal comfort.
The landlord has a two-stage complaints process. Under its complaints policy, stage one responses must be issued within 15 working days, and stage two responses must be issued within 20 working days of an escalation request.

Summary of events

On 17 November 2021, the resident reported problems with the front door, windows, and property temperature to the landlord. He said:
1. A strip had been replaced and resealed on one window in the living room previously, but the rest of the windows had not been looked at. The same problem was now happening with the rest of the windows.
2. The glass panels moved in the frame when cleaned, and all of the windows had blown.
3. The property was always cold. He had COPD and asthma, was regularly suffering with chest infections, and had been recently hospitalised with pneumonia despite almost never leaving the house.
4. He had two thick pairs of curtains and constantly had the heating on.
5. The front door was not secure and could be moved away from the frame at the bottom, which was also letting the cold and draughts into the property.
On 22 November 2021, the landlord inspected the windows. Its notes say there was no movement in the double glazing unit, but the frame needed to be inspected.
The landlord’s repair logs state it tried to contact the resident on 15 and 22 December 2021, but received no response. It therefore sent the resident a text message to say it would measure the door on 27 January 2022.
On 28 February 2022, the landlord logged a works order for an inspection of all windows in the property. It noted that the resident was vulnerable, and requested a report following the inspection. The resident said an inspection was due to take place at that time but nobody attended. The landlord said the resident reported the issue at that time. It is unclear from the landlord’s logs whether there was a missed appointment, or another inspection was booked following a further report from the resident. In either event, no further inspection of the windows went ahead until after the resident made a complaint.
On 1 April 2022, the landlord fitted a new front door.
On 10 October 2022, the resident wrote to his MP. He said:
1. The property was very cold due to the poor quality insulation and double glazing, and the windows and doors were in disrepair which allowed the cold in.
2. He had to keep the heating on most of the time due to the amount of cold air the defective windows and doors were letting in, and that this was putting him under significant financial pressure.
3. The kitchen was unsuitable for his needs. He had asked the landlord to send a surveyor, but it did not do so.
4. He believed his health issues would get worse if the situation was not resolved, and he believed it had already affected his COPD.
The resident’s MP forwarded the resident’s complaint to the landlord the next day.
On 24 October 2022, the landlord issued its stage one response to the complaint. It said:
1. It accepted there was an unreasonable delay in it acting on the resident’s February 2022 reports, and apologised ‘‘profusely’’.
2. The delay in arranging for an inspection of the windows was due to an administrative oversight. An appointment had now been made for an inspection on 4 November 2022.
3. The resident’s property was not on the landlord’s list for a full window replacement at that stage.
4. With regard to the kitchen, it recommended the resident contact the occupational triage team who could carry out an initial assessment and refer the resident for a home visit and assessment if necessary. It said that if an adaptation was necessary and appropriate, the occupational therapists would refer the adaptation to the disability housing team to progress.
On 24 October 2022, the resident asked to escalate the complaint. He said:
1. He was happy the landlord acknowledged its mistake regarding the windows, but he believed the landlord should pay compensation for its failure to respond in February 2022.
2. He had to pay increased heating bills as a result of the landlord’s inaction, and the landlord had failed in its duty of care to a vulnerable person.
3. The landlord should send a surveyor rather than a contractor, as there would be limits to what a contractor could achieve. He said a contractor would not be able to do much given the age and structure of the property, and that as other bungalows of similar age and condition had been repaired prior to the Covid-19 lockdown, he believed he was being discriminated against due to his nationality.
4. He was a vulnerable person with disabilities and severe mental health problems including severe anxiety, as well as COPD. He said he was at risk of hospitalisation if the issues were not resolved.
5. The kitchen had water damage on the floor which was coming from underneath the floor, and there were hazards which restricted his use of the kitchen, such as sharp tiles and a sharp boiler cover.
6. He feared for his wellbeing because of the constant cold coming in through the doors and windows, and felt he was being charged for the landlord’s failings.
On 4 November 2022, the landlord’s contractor attended the property. The repair logs state that there was a draught throughout the property, two windows needed hinge replacements, and that the resident had asked for a surveyor to inspect the windows. On the same day, the resident told the landlord that the contractor told him that one of the bedroom windows had a large gap in the side. He said that explained why the property was so cold. He said it was now too dangerous to use that window, that all other windows had a draught, and that no window repairs had gone ahead that day.
On 15 November 2022, the landlord emailed the resident. It noted the resident’s reference to the water on the floor and sharp edges in the kitchen, and asked him to send photos so it could determine the best way to resolve the issues. The resident declined to send photos as he said a surveyor would need to look at the kitchen. He said the landlord needed to improve its communication as it had ignored his email regarding the type of contractor attending his property on 4 November 2022. He also said serious damage had been identified during that visit, but nothing had been done.
The landlord’s internal emails on that date noted that there was a draught throughout the property. It requested a further inspection of all windows in the property, but said it would not replace the windows unless they were beyond economic repair.
On 21 November 2022, the resident sent the landlord a further email. He said:
1. The landlord failed to attend and inspect the windows in February 2022. His support worker had spent a significant amount of time arranging the appointment due to his ill health.
2. His gas bills were so high, as a result of the draught, that he had now ended up in debt through no fault of his own.
3. The landlord asked for photos of the kitchen floor leak, but as he was not an expert, the landlord needed to arrange a surveyor inspection. He was given an appointment for 29 December 2022, which was then cancelled until after Christmas, and he felt this showed the landlord was not taking this seriously.
4. On 4 November 2022, a contractor attended and noted that the bedroom window frame was bent, there was a draught coming in through the living room windows and doors, and the living room window frame showed signs of movement. He did not show the contractor the rest of the windows and doors as they were not a surveyor, so there was not a lot he could do. The contractor left and said he would arrange for a surveyor.
5. He slept with a second set of curtains over the bedroom window to try to keep the cold out. He was still able to feel the cold draught on his head at night despite having blocked the window with wood and two sets of curtains to try to keep the breeze out.
6. Two years ago, the nearby bungalows had new doors and windows fitted. They were of the same age and in the same level of disrepair as the resident’s property. He believed his property not receiving the same repairs was discrimination, and should be treated as such.
7. He could not open the windows because of how damaged they were, and this had caused damp in the bedroom. The contractor from 4 November 2022 showed him that the window frame was bent and screws were coming out. He said the workman told him not to open the window. He said he was struggling to breathe due to lack of ventilation as a result.
On 22 November 2022, the landlord issued its stage two response. It said:
1. It had raised a works order for an inspection of the draughts around the window. A contractor was sent in the first instance to assess whether it was a repair they could carry out, or whether it was beyond economic repair and therefore required a surveyor.
2. The contractor who inspected the windows on 4 November 2022 said that repairs were needed to the hinges of two windows. A repair appointment had been booked for 9 December 2022.
3. It had carried out a stock condition survey of all properties for a five-year plan of improvement works. The resident’s property was not listed in the five-year plan, and there was no evidence he had been treated unfairly.
4. It accepted it had not addressed all of the resident’s concerns in the stage one response, and offered £100 compensation for both that and the delay in dealing with the windows in February 2022.
On the same day, the resident told the landlord he did not accept its response as it had not dealt with the draught, and he had to keep his heating on all the time because of cold caused by disrepair. He then contacted the Ombudsman and said:
1. He had a complaint about multiple disrepair issues including damaged windows and doorframes, and missed appointments.
2. The landlord had not addressed the issues such as the draught from the windows and the lack of insulation. It had also not addressed his vulnerability and the increase in his bills as a result of the draught from the windows.
3. The cold in the property was significantly impacting his health.

Events after the landlord’s final complaint response

The landlord’s repair logs show that the appointment booked for 9 December 2022 was rescheduled by the resident due to health issues. The landlord booked alternative appointments, but the resident asked for the repair appointment to be rescheduled for a date after 8 March 2023 due to his health.
The landlord inspected the resident’s kitchen floor on 9 February 2023. Its inspection notes say the kitchen floor was in good condition with nothing which indicated there was a leak. It said the resident indicated the issue was intermittent. It asked the resident to let it know the next time there was water in the area so it could try to trace the cause. The operative also inspected the boiler casing and noted that it was not smooth where it had been cut at the top. The resident told the Ombudsman that the landlord has since arranged for the boiler casing to be smoothed down.
On 12 May 2023, the resident provided the Ombudsman with an update on the repairs. He said:
1. The landlord had carried out several visits regarding the windows, but there had been no real action.
2. An appointment was set for the bedroom window to be fixed on 14 April 2023, but the contractor never turned up for the appointment. A contractor then attended without notice a month later. His severe anxiety is exacerbated by unexpected visits, and he was not prepared for the visit. He declined any repairs at the time because of the impact the visit without notice had on his mental health.
On 16 May 2023, the landlord provided the Ombudsman with the following update:
1. The appointment booked for 14 April 2023 was rescheduled at the resident’s request as he had a hospital appointment that day. It was rescheduled for 9 May 2023.
2. A tradesman attended on 9 May 2023 and found all windows to be in good order. He found the back door needed repair but the resident declined this as he was unaware works would be going ahead that day.
3. There were no works to be done on the windows as the inspection found no issues.
The landlord’s notes from the inspection on 9 May 2023 state that the windows were working but that two window hinges and the door needed repairs.

Assessment and findings

Scope of the investigation

Paragraph 42(a) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme says the Ombudsman cannot consider a complaint until it has exhausted the landlord’s internal complaints process. The Ombudsman understands that the resident has made further complaints to the landlord about the standard of works carried out in the wet room, missed appointments following the complaint, and damp in the property. Those complaints had not completed the landlord’s internal complaints process at the time this complaint was referred to the Ombudsman. As such, the Ombudsman is unable to consider those matters as part of this investigation. Should the resident wish to pursue those complaints, he would need to refer them to the Ombudsman after they have gone through the landlord’s internal complaints process.
The resident told the Ombudsman that the cold temperature in his property has impacted his health. The Ombudsman is unable to draw conclusions on the causation of, or liability for, impacts on health and wellbeing. However, the Ombudsman can consider the general distress and inconvenience which the situation may have caused the resident.
The resident also believes the landlord has discriminated against him in not carrying out the requested repairs at the property. It is not within the Ombudsman’s remit to make a finding as to whether the landlord has unlawfully discriminated against the resident, as that would be a matter for a court to decide. As such, the Ombudsman will not be determining whether there has been discrimination as part of this investigation. However, it will consider whether the landlord’s actions in response to the resident’s reports of disrepair were reasonable in light of the resident’s vulnerability.

Repairs – windows

The resident is dissatisfied that the landlord has not replaced the windows in his property. He said the windows are beyond economic repair and are causing extreme cold temperatures in his property, which is negatively impacting his physical and mental health. The landlord acknowledged that there was an initial unreasonable delay in arranging an inspection in February 2022, which it said was the result of an administrative oversight. It has advised the resident that his window replacement is not on its five-year schedule of repair works, and having since arranged an inspection of the windows, it does not believe there are any further repairs needed.
It is not disputed that defects with the windows would fall under the landlord’s repair obligations. The landlord’s repair logs show that the resident reported issues with the windows on 17 November 2021. He said that the panes moved when he cleaned the windows. The landlord arranged an inspection on 22 November 2021. Its notes show the contractor found no movement in the double glazing unit, but said that the frames required further inspection. The landlord has provided no evidence of attempts to further inspect the window frames at that stage.
Under its repairs policy, the landlord was required to complete any repairs to the windows within 20 working days. The initial inspection was carried out in a reasonable timeframe, and in line with the landlord’s policy. However, as the contractor identified that a more detailed inspection of the frames was needed, and the resident was reporting extreme cold in the property, the Ombudsman would have expected the landlord to arrange for a surveyor to inspect all of the windows. The landlord took no action until at least February 2022, and there is a discrepancy as to what happened at that stage. The resident told the Ombudsman that an inspection of the windows was booked for that point, and that nobody attended. He said the appointment had been arranged with the help of his support worker due to his ill health. The landlord said the resident reported draughts on that date, and it failed to book an inspection due to an administrative error.
The landlord’s repair logs do not help to clarify the situation. If the landlord is correct, it has provided no evidence that it took any further action following its inspection in November 2021, despite the resident reporting the issue again. There is no evidence of the landlord taking any action between November 2021 and November 2022. It is inappropriate that no action was taken for a year, and that the landlord only arranged a further inspection after the resident made a complaint through his MP.
While arranging a further inspection was a reasonable step to take, the landlord has provided no evidence to show it was a surveyor who inspected the windows. The Ombudsman would have expected the landlord to arrange for a surveyor to inspect all the windows and report back given the inspection history. This was especially important given the resident’s vulnerabilities and his reports that the property was cold enough to impact his health both physically and mentally.
When it inspected the windows following the complaint, the landlord found that there was a draught throughout the property, and that two windows required new hinges. The landlord has not provided details of the inspections carried out, or whether the contractor concluded that the draughts were caused by the issues with hinges.
The notes in the landlord’s report also do not match the resident’s notes of the inspection, as he told the landlord on the same day that the contractor had identified a large gap in one of the windows. Given that this was raised by the resident on the day of the inspection, and did not match the notes on its system, the Ombudsman would have expected the landlord to clarify the nature of the disrepair, and the likely cause of the draughts, with the contractor. It has not shown that it did so.
Had the landlord responded appropriately to the resident’s initial reports and followed up on its November 2021 inspection in line with its policy, it would have been possible for it to have determined whether the level of cold reported in the property was a result of problems with the windows and, if not, to have undertaken further assessments to determine whether the property met the Decent Homes Standard as a result of the reported heat loss. Its inaction from November 2021 meant that a vulnerable resident was left with potentially defective windows and a cold property for over a year. This would inevitably have led to distress and inconvenience for the resident.
The Ombudsman considers there has been maladministration, and that £800 compensation should be paid to the resident to reflect the distress and inconvenience caused by the excessive amount of time the resident had to wait for an inspection of the windows. This is in line with the Ombudsman’s published remedies guidance for failures which have a significant impact on a resident.

Kitchen suitability and repairs

As part of his complaint, the resident told the landlord in October 2022 that the kitchen was not suitable for his medical needs. The landlord responded by referring the resident to the occupational triage team for adaptations. It was reasonable for the landlord to refer the resident to the occupational triage team for adaptations, as assessments for adaptations would need to be carried out before any adaptation works could take place.
When escalating the complaint, the resident referred to water damage to the kitchen floor, as well as sharp edges in the kitchen and his concerns that the kitchen was unsafe as a result. The Ombudsman has seen no evidence of the resident reporting these issues to the landlord prior to his complaint, and the landlord’s repair obligations only arise when it is made aware of potential disrepair.
The landlord responded by requesting photos of the sharp edges and flooring to determine which type of contractor would be needed. This was reasonable, as the photos could help the landlord to ascertain which type of contractor would be the most appropriate. It then arranged for an inspection, which took place in February 2023. It was appropriate for the landlord to organise such an inspection when the resident raised concerns about submission of photographs.
The Ombudsman considers that the landlord responded reasonably to the resident’s reports of issues with the kitchen by signposting him to the occupational triage team and organising an inspection after the resident disagreed with the approach for him to send photographs.

Complaint handling

When a complaint is made, the landlord is required under the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code to respond to all points raised in a complaint. While the landlord has responded to some of the points raised, its stage one response did not deal with the complaint about a lack of insulation, the impact on the resident’s energy bills, sharp edges in the kitchen, problems with the doors, or that the property did not meet the Decent Homes Standard. The stage two response also failed to deal with parts of the complaint.
Given that one of the complaints was the financial impact the delay in repairing the windows was having on the resident, the Ombudsman would have expected the landlord to set out its position on that part of the complaint, as well as the complaint about a lack of insulation, and to signpost the resident to relevant support services alongside its investigation. This was especially important given the resident’s vulnerabilities and financial concerns, and was a missed opportunity to support the resident and resolve the complaint more effectively.
The landlord has offered the resident £100 compensation for its failure to deal with parts of his complaint in its stage one response. However, it also did not deal with some of those issues in the stage two response, leading the resident to have to contact the landlord again. As such, the Ombudsman considers there has been maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there has been maladministration with regard to the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of defective windows, and the resulting cold temperature in his property.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there has been no maladministration by the landlord with regard to its handling of the resident’s reports of problems with the kitchen.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there has been maladministration by the landlord with regard to its complaint handling.

Reasons

The resident reported defects with the windows and persistent cold in November 2021. The landlord carried out an initial inspection on 22 November 2021, which was reasonable. However, that inspection identified that further inspections were required, and the landlord has not shown it took any steps to arrange any further inspection for over a year. It arranged for a contractor rather than a surveyor to carry out the inspection a year later, despite having already had a contractor inspection where they identified, but had been unable to diagnose, issues with the frames. This was not in line with its policy or good industry practice, and left a vulnerable resident with defective windows for a year by the time of the stage two response.
The landlord appropriately signposted the resident to the occupational triage team for adaptations to his property. The Ombudsman has seen no evidence that issues with sharp edges or the flooring had been raised prior to the complaint, and the landlord responded to the new reports by attempting to gather further information and arranging an inspection of the area, which was reasonable.
The landlord did not respond to all of the points raised by the resident as part of his complaint, as is required by the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code.

Orders

Within four weeks of the date of this report, the landlord is ordered to:
1. Write to the resident to apologise for the failings identified in this report.
2. Pay the resident £1,000 compensation for the distress and inconvenience caused by the failings identified in this report. This is calculated as follows:
  1. £800 for its maladministration in handling the resident’s reports of defective windows and significant cold in the property.
  2. £200 for its maladministration in complaint handling (inclusive of the £100 previously offered to the resident).
3. Arrange for a surveyor to inspect all of the windows and doors in the property. The landlord should then write to the resident to confirm the following:
  1. The results of the surveyor’s inspection.
  2. What works, if any, it intends to carry out as a result of the survey.
  3. When it intends to carry out any identified works.
  4. If it does not intend to carry out any further works following the survey, what its reasons are, and what steps it intends to take to assess the reported heat loss from the property.

The landlord should provide a copy of the above letter to the Ombudsman.

Within six weeks of the date of this report, the landlord is ordered to assess whether it considers the delays in repairing the windows contributed to the resident’s increased energy bills. It should then write to the resident to set out the results of that assessment, and whether it considers it should reimburse any of the increased energy costs. If it does not intend to refund any increased energy costs, it should set out its reasoning to the resident. The landlord should provide a copy of the letter to the Ombudsman.
The landlord is to provide the Ombudsman with evidence of compliance with the above orders within the timescales set out above.

Recommendations

If it has not already done so, it is recommended that the landlord reviews its complaints policy to ensure its target timescales for a complaint response are compliant with the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code.
It is recommended that the landlord arrange for a heat loss survey to be carried out in the winter months of this year to assess whether the property meets the ‘thermal comfort’ criteria set out in the Decent Homes Standard.
It is recommended that the landlord carry out refresher training for all complaint handlers on the importance of ensuring that each aspect of a complaint is addressed in a complaint response.
The landlord should reply to this Service within four weeks of the date of this report to confirm its intentions in regard to the above recommendations.