Royal Borough Of Greenwich (202219719)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202219719

Royal Borough Of Greenwich

25 March 2024

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:

An offer of a replacement front door to the resident’s home.
The associated complaint.

Background

In around 2014, the landlord inspected its housing stock and found that a number of leaseholders had front doors that did not comply with current fire safety regulations. This posed a fire risk. To reduce the risk, it offered some leaseholders new fire doors free of charge.
The resident became the leaseholder of the property in 2018.
The landlord’s contractor sent a letter to the resident on 3 March 2020, notifying him that it needed access to his home to complete a survey for a new door. It gave him an appointment for 10 March 2020. The letter asked him to return a “resident choice sheet”.
On 11 March 2020, the resident sent a complaint email to the contractor. He had arranged to work from home for the appointment the previous day, but the contractor did not come. Additionally, he felt he was given insufficient notice of the appointment. He sent a copy of the “resident choice sheet” to the contractor. The contractor apologised for missing the appointment.
The resident said he did not hear from the contractor again, but did not follow this up as from 26 March 2020, Covid-19 lockdown restrictions were in place. On 8 November 2020, the resident contacted the contractor, saying it had not responded to his last email. He said 2 of his neighbours had now had their front doors installed. The contractor agreed to look into this for him.
The contractor responded the following day, asking if the resident had completed a “leaseholder permission form”, and attaching a copy. The resident said he had not received the form. He completed it and sent it back to the contractor. The contractor confirmed the same day, 19 November 2020, that the landlord had approved the order for the door, and the specification had been sent to the manufacturer. It said it would contact the resident closer to the installation date.
There were further lockdown restrictions in place from December 2020, and the resident was not updated on the progress of his door. After the restrictions lifted, the resident contacted the contractor on 04 April 2021. He received no response, so he emailed again on 24 April 2021. He also submitted a complaint to the landlord expressing his dissatisfaction with the contractor missing the appointment the previous year, and saying:
1. It had taken too long to install his fire door.
2. The contractor had not responded to his recent email.
3. He was initially given one form to fill in but later told that 2 were needed.
The landlord responded at stage one of its complaints process on 6 May 2021. It did not uphold the complaint. It said that it had not received a landlord permission form from the resident, so it had not installed a door. It attached a new permission form for the resident to complete and return.
On 3 July 2021, the resident emailed the landlord saying he had not received its stage one response. The landlord provided him with a copy. He was dissatisfied with the landlord’s response and asked it to escalate his complaint to stage 2 of its complaints process. He said:
1. The landlord had not responded to his complaint about the contractor not attending the survey appointment at his home.
2. Information in the landlord’s complaint response was incorrect. The landlord said he had not completed a “leaseholder permission form”, but he had completed and sent 2 forms to the contractor. He attached copies of the emails between him and the contractor.
3. He was unhappy with the landlord’s complaints handling and said it should have contacted him to discuss his complaint.
The landlord responded at stage 2 of its complaints process on 1 August 2022. It partially upheld his complaint, saying:
1. The instructions on the form said it should be sent to the landlord, not the contractor. It could see the contractor received the form and said it would send it to the landlord, but the landlord did not receive it.
2. The contractor no longer had capacity to install the resident’s door. The landlord intended to install his door in a new contract. This would be in 8-12 months’ time.
3. It apologised for not addressing all elements of his complaint in its stage one complaint response.
4. It said the appointment was made between the resident and the landlord’s contractor. It would discuss the missed appointment and the permission form with the contractor at its next contract management meeting.
5. If offered the resident £25 as a goodwill gesture.
The resident was dissatisfied with the landlord’s response and contacted the Ombudsman for support. To resolve the complaint, the resident would like the landlord to install the door it offered him.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s handling of its offer of a fire door

The lease of the property shows it is the resident’s responsibility to maintain and repair doors, including the front entrance door. The landlord became aware that many of its leaseholders had front entrance doors that did not meet current regulations, and this had a fire safety impact. The landlord took a pragmatic approach to the issue, making leaseholders a discretionary offer of a free front door. This was a reasonable approach, in excess of the landlord’s legal obligations towards its leaseholders.
As it did not own the doors, the landlord needed the consent of each leaseholder to replace them. In 2014/15, the landlord wrote to the leaseholders in the resident’s block. The landlord did not record a response from the former leaseholder of the resident’s property, so the door was not replaced.
The landlord told the Ombudsman its contractor wrote to all leaseholders of properties where the door was still non-compliant in 2020, including the resident. The letter asked residents to fill in a “leaseholder acceptance form” and send this to the landlord directly. The resident denies receiving this letter from the landlord.
The Ombudsman’s spotlight report on knowledge and information management, available on our website, says that records should tell the full story of what happened, when and why. In this case, the landlord’s records do not do this. The “leaseholder acceptance form” the landlord has provided is undated, and it cannot confirm the date it was posted to the resident. It is therefore not possible for the Ombudsman to determine if the letter was sent to the resident. This is a record-keeping failure. The landlord should consider self-assessing against the Ombudsman’s spotlight report on knowledge and information management, to ensure that its record-keeping practices are robust.
The leaseholder received an “introductory letter” from the landlord’s contractor, dated 3 March 2020. This letter gave a survey appointment for the following week. The resident was asked to complete and return a form, selecting a door colour and to give access and contact information.
It may have been confusing for leaseholders to receive 2 letters and be asked to complete 2 forms, particularly as some of the information, like door colour choice, was duplicated. The landlord has not explained why this was necessary. It would have been clearer for leaseholders if the landlord had asked for all the required information in one form. If 2 forms were necessary, it would have been reasonable for both of the landlord’s letters to explain this. Neither letter did so. If the resident did not receive the undated “leaseholder permission” letter, he had no way of knowing he had not provided all the required information from the letter he did receive. This may have caused an avoidable delay in him completing the “leaseholder permission” form.
The “introductory letter” sent by the contractor gave several ways for residents to submit their form, including email, phone messaging, giving the form to the surveyor at the appointment, or leaving it under their doormat. While it was reasonable to provide residents with more than one way to respond, the variety of response methods may have meant that tracking leaseholders’ responses was difficult. When consulting with residents in future, the landlord could consider proactively calling or emailing residents who had not responded.
The contractor’s letter gave the resident one week’s notice of the appointment on 10 March 2021. It did not give any alternative appointment dates or say that the resident could rearrange the appointment if he was unavailable. This was inconvenient for the resident as he had to request permission to work from home at short notice. The landlord should consider giving more notice of appointments in future or making it clear in its correspondence how to rearrange appointments if they are unsuitable.
The landlord has not explained why the contractor failed to attend the appointment on 10 March 2020, so the Ombudsman considers this was inappropriate. This would have been frustrating for the resident, as he arranged to work from home for the appointment. While the contractor apologised for not attending, it should have let him know as soon as it was aware the appointment would not go ahead and pro-actively arranged another appointment.
The first Covid-19 lockdown began on 26 March 2020. Government guidance for landlords was that they should only access properties for serious and urgent issues. As the resident’s door replacement was due to be completed through planned works and was an improvement rather than a repair, pausing the replacement programme would have been in line with government guidance.
On 1 June 2020, the government guidance for landlords was updated, and landlords were told they could resume planned works. It would have been reasonable for the landlord to reschedule the works at this time, although further delays may have been expected as many landlords had large backlogs of urgent repairs, which had to be prioritised over planned works.
The landlord should have kept the resident updated throughout this period. This would have managed his expectations. There is no evidence the landlord contacted the resident until he emailed the contractor again on 18 November 2020, 8 months later. At around this time, the resident said 2 neighbours had their doors fitted and he had verbally asked the contractor for an update but it had not responded. The lack of updates was unreasonable and would have caused the resident uncertainty.
The landlord said it had no record that the resident completed the “leaseholder permission form”, so no door was ordered. However, we have seen evidence that the resident completed the form and sent it to the contractor. The contractor updated the resident the same day, saying the landlord had approved the door replacement, and a door order had been placed with its manufacturer. With the information available, we are unable to determine if the contractor did not pass the completed form to the landlord, or the landlord did not record its receipt. In either case, there was a significant communication breakdown between the landlord and its contractor, which caused an avoidable delay in the replacement of the resident’s door. To put things right, the landlord should produce an action plan, showing how it will ensure information sharing between it and its contractors is robust so it can keep adequate records going forward.
The significant delays in assessing the resident’s form ultimately led to the landlord being unable to replace his door within its existing door replacement contract. In its stage 2 complaint response, the landlord said it would replace the door as part of a new contract, which would take another 8-12 months. While the offer of the door was discretionary, and the resident’s door was useable during this time, this further delay was unreasonable when we take in account the length of time the resident had already been waiting, and the avoidable miscommunication which led to the delay.
Although more than 12 months has passed since the landlord sent its stage 2 complaint response, the landlord is yet to replace the resident’s door. This does not demonstrate that the landlord has learned from its errors in the handling of this case. The resident will have experienced additional inconvenience during this time.
Cumulatively the errors identified in this report amount to maladministration in the landlord’s handling of its offer to replace the resident’s front entrance door.
At stage 2 of its complaints process, the landlord offered the resident £25 in compensation. This did not adequately reflect the time, distress, inconvenience, and avoidable delay the resident has experienced over a 3-year period. To put things right, the landlord is ordered to pay the resident £250 in addition to the £25 it has already offered. The Ombudsman’s remedies guidance, available on our website, says that awards in this range are appropriate where the landlord’s failures have adversely affected the resident, and the offer of compensation it made was not proportionate to the failings identified by our investigation.
The landlord says it has ordered a front door for the resident. It anticipates that the door will be ready to install in the next 2 weeks. The landlord is therefore ordered to install the door within 4 weeks of the date of this report and confirm to the Ombudsman when it has done so.

Complaints Handling

The landlord has a 2 stage complaints process. It says it will respond to complaints at stage one of its process in 15 working days, and at stage 2 within 20 working days. This does not align with the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code), published on our website, which sets out our expectations for landlords’ complaint handling. The code says that landlords should respond at stage one of their complaint process within 10 working days. The Ombudsman is currently reviewing the Complaint Handling Code. When it is published on 1 April 2024, the landlord should review its complaints policy to ensure its complaints process aligns with the Complaint Handling Code.
On 10 March 2021, when the contractor did not attend its prearranged appointment, the resident sent it an email. The subject line of the email was ‘complaint’. In his email, the resident clearly expressed dissatisfaction with the contractor’s non-attendance and lack of communication. This meets the Code’s definition of a complaint, which is: “an expression of dissatisfaction, however made, about the standard of service, actions or lack of action by the organisation, its own staff, or those acting on its behalf, affecting an individual resident or group of residents.”
It is understandable that the resident emailed the contractor rather than the landlord directly, as the appointment letter he received only gave the contractor’s contact details, not the landlord’s. The contractor should have treated the email as a complaint, and passed it on to the landlord, so that it could be handled in line with the landlord’s complaints policy. There is no evidence it did this. This caused an avoidable delay in the resident accessing redress. The contractor was acting on behalf of the landlord in its contact with the resident and therefore the landlord is responsible for the contractor’s errors in this regard. The landlord should speak to its contractors to ensure they are able to identify complaints made by residents and pass them to the landlord.
The resident complained to the landlord directly on 6 May 2021. The landlord appropriately acknowledged and responded to the resident’s stage one complaint within the timescale set out in the Code. The resident said he did not receive the landlord’s stage one complaint response. With the information available, this investigation is unable to determine why the resident did not receive it. When he raised the issue with the landlord, it quickly provided him with a copy, which was an appropriate action to take.
The landlord’s stage one response was inadequate. It did not address all elements of the resident’s complaint. For example, it did not respond to the resident’s complaint about the contractor’s missed appointment or its failure to respond to his email. This is not in line with the Code, which says the landlord must respond to all elements of the complaint. The lack of response to these issues would have been frustrating for the resident as he was obliged to raise the same issues again at stage 2 in order to get a response.
The Code says that “a complaint investigation must be conducted in an impartial manner, seeking sufficient, reliable information from both parties so that fair and appropriate findings and recommendations can be made”. The landlord’s investigation did not seek sufficient information from both parties. In his complaint the resident said he had provided two forms to the contractor. It would have been reasonable for the landlord to investigate this with its contractor or ask the resident for copies of his correspondence. There is no evidence it did this. The landlord’s failure to fully address and investigate his complaint led to the resident feeling the landlord had not listened to his complaint, and that it was inferring that he was responsible for the door not being installed. This may have damaged the landlord-tenant relationship.
At stage 2 of its complaints process the landlord appropriately apologised for its failure to address the missed appointment in its stage one response. It said it would raise the missed appointment, and the permission form, with the contractor at its next contract management meeting. It also said it would reiterate the service standards it expected its contractors to provide. This was a reasonable action to improve service standards in future.
In its stage 2 response, the landlord accepted that the evidence the resident provided showed that he had sent the form to its contractor. However, it said the resident should have sent the letter to it directly, rather than its contractor, in line with the instructions on the letter. This response was not appropriate in the circumstances of the case, as it could be interpreted as inferring blame on the resident. The contractor had emailed the resident a copy of the form and asked him to send it back to it. It was therefore understandable that the resident did this, rather than following the contradictory instructions on the letter.
The landlord failed to fully identify its complaints handling failures and the distress and inconvenience these caused the resident. This amounts to maladministration. To put things right, the landlord is ordered to pay £150 for its complaints handling failures, and to send a written apology to the resident for the failures identified in this report. This is in line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance as referenced above.

Determination

In accordance with Paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of:
1. Its offer of a replacement front entrance door.
2. The associated complaint.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

Within 4 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord should:
1. Apologise to the resident in writing for the failures identified in this report.
2. Directly pay the resident £400, comprising:
  1. £250 for the poor handling of its offer to replace the resident’s front entrance door.
  2. £150 for its complaint handling failures.
3. Ensure the front door has been installed.
The landlord should provide the Ombudsman with evidence it has complied with these orders.

Recommendations:

The landlord should consider the failures in its contract management in this case and produce an action plan to improve this. As part of the action plan the landlord should consider:
1. How it can ensure its contractors identify and pass on complaints if these are made to the contractor directly.
2. How the landlord can ensure information sharing between it and its contractors is robust and it keeps adequate records.
3. How it can ensure the roles between it and its contractors are defined, and this is communicated clearly to residents.
The Ombudsman is currently reviewing the Complaint Handling Code. When it is published on 1 April 2024, the landlord should review its complaints policy and procedure to its complaints process aligns with the Complaint Handling Code.
The landlord should consider self-assessing against the Ombudsman’s spotlight report on knowledge and information management, to ensure that its record-keeping practices are robust.