Sandwell Metropolitan Borough Council (202107285)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202107285

Sandwell Metropolitan Borough Council

 28 November 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

1. The complaint is about the way the landlord dealt with plastering works and other repairs to the resident’s home.

Background

2. The resident is a secure tenant of a one bedroom first floor flat which is owned and managed by the landlord.
3. Having inspected the resident’s property on 7 May 2021, on 14 June 2021 the landlord commenced repair work at the resident’s property to replaster walls in the hall, stairs and landing. The resident contacted the landlord on 15 June 2021 raising concerns about the delivery of the repair work. On 18 June 2021 the resident complained to the landlord that he should have been moved into temporary accommodation as the scaffolding, erected and dismantled daily, meant there was no access in or out of his property. He identified that there were delays in the repair work due to poor organisation and the planned two-day job was still ongoing. He also raised concern that floor coverings were not properly protected and that a member of staff was not dressed in uniform.
4. On 27 June 2021 the resident further pursued his complaint adding a number of additional points. He claimed that the landlord had breached his tenancy agreement by not consulting him properly about the major work. He raised fire safety concerns regarding a covered smoke alarm and loose electrics. He stated he had to breathe in plaster and brick dust for two days as there were gaps under his internal doors and he requested compensation for damage to his carpet and two electrical items. He also identified that he was left without heating for nine days and hot water for four days. He noted faults with the plastering and the electrical work and confirmed that there was still work outstanding.
5. The landlord sent its final response to the complaint on 14 July 2021.It explained that the work was planned for four days though recognised how the appointment notification could have been misinterpreted and apologised for this.  It identified that the inspector who visited to assess the work should have explained the repair process to the resident. It acknowledged that the scaffolding had caused inconvenience and a delay in the work, but confirmed that this was unavoidable due to the layout of the property. It stated that it was erected in a way which allowed emergency access and egress. It confirmed that fire safety was not compromised.
6. The landlord also identified that protective carpet coverings were used, but that a dust extractor unit was not. It noted that a compensation claim form had been provided to the resident but had not yet been returned. It stated that two supervisors had recently visited and agreed with resident what further work needed to be done. It pointed out that during the visit it was also confirmed that as a gesture of goodwill it would redecorate the areas that had been replastered. The landlord accepted that some electrical wiring had been installed incorrectly but confirmed that this had been made safe and it also agreed to replace an additional socket the resident had concerns about. The response included a general apology for the inconvenience caused. The landlord confirmed that it was unaware of the heating issues until these were reported on 22 June 2021 and this was then dealt with on the same day.
7. The resident emailed the Housing Ombudsman on 8 November 2021 requesting that his complaint be investigated. He explained he wanted outstanding work to be completed and compensation for the distress and inconvenience caused. He added that he had not yet received a response to his compensation claim for damaged items sent on 9 August 2021. The landlord subsequently confirmed to the Ombudsman that this was settled in November 2021 with a payment of £408 being made.

Assessment and findings

8. It is noted in the resident’s correspondence with the Ombudsman that he had additional concerns following the completion of the complaints process. The Ombudsman is unable to formally investigate issues that have not progressed through a landlord’s complaints process and, as such, these issues have not been referenced in this investigation.

Consultation/information on the repair

9. In his complaint the resident claimed that the landlord breached the tenancy condition which states ‘We must ask your views about any of our housing plans if they will have a major effect on you. For example, we will consult you about refurbishment or improvement work that is planned for your property or your area’. It is not clear from the clause and example provided whether housing plans include scheduled plastering works at an individual property  nor what is considered a ‘major effect’, so it is not clear if the landlord was required to ask the resident for his views in this instance.
10. Regardless, the landlord is regulated by the Homes and Community Agency which sets a range of standards that need to be complied with. This includes providing ‘tenants with accessible, relevant and timely information about the progress of any repairs work’. Relevant upfront information so as to manage the resident’s expectations about pending works can be considered part of the timely information. In fact, the landlord’s complaint response identified that the inspector who assessed the job ‘should’ have verbally provided information about the work. There is no evidence of what, if any, advice was provided to the resident and the complaint response did not explain what the resident was told.  Over and above verbal information, as the works were planned for a number of days and involved disruption it was unreasonable that the landlord did not provide written information. This should have covered the likely disruption, what measures would be put in place to minimise this, and any requirements on the resident. As such there was a service failure by the landlord.
11. The landlord’s response did recognise that its appointment letter and texts could have been misinterpreted in respect of the timescale for the work. In its complaint response it confirmed that the work was scheduled for four days, 14 June 2021 to 17 June 2021, whereas the resident understood the work would take place on two days, 14 and 17 June 2021. The landlord apologised for this confusion. The Ombudsman does not have access to the appointment letters and texts so cannot verify exactly what was said but the landlord did provide a reasonable explanation and an apology was appropriate. However, this error would also have caused additional inconvenience to resident given that he would have provided access to contractors on days he did not anticipate, therefore compensation is also appropriate.
12. The complaint response identified a ‘technical error’ at the outset which although not explained fits with the resident’s assertion that a decision to use full scaffolding was only taken when the works commenced. The landlord having inspected the resident’s property on 7 May 2022, had the opportunity to identify how the works should be carried out, taking into account its health and safety obligations and liaising with its contractor as necessary. If the problem with access and egress only became apparent at that stage, it is reasonable to expect that the landlord should have offered to reschedule the repair work so that the resident would have time to make plans to accommodate the new level of disruption.  This was therefore also a shortcoming in the landlord’s approach.

Resident’s concern that he should have been moved to temporary accommodation

13. In line with relevant legislation and the tenancy conditions, the landlord had responsibility for carrying out the repair to the property and the resident was required to provide reasonable access to the property to allow the work to take place. In arguing that he should have been moved out while the repair was completed the resident cited the tenancy condition which states ‘In certain circumstances, you may have to leave your property if, for example, we need to do major repair work. If you need to leave your property, we will offer you suitable alternative accommodation while we carry out the work.’ Specific details of where this might apply are not included. However, it is reasonable to assume this would be where it was not possible to safely conduct repair works with the resident in occupation or where essential facilities at the property where unavailable for a length of time which would make it unreasonable for the resident to remain.
14. One of the issues raised by the resident in this respect was fire safety concerns.  In response the landlord stated that the scaffolding was erected in such a way that emergency exit from the property was still possible. It also confirmed it maintained electrical safety while the works were carried out. The resident did not agree with the landlord’s assertions. However, the onus was on the landlord to explain its position that exit in the event of an emergency was possible, for instance, making reference to any relevant health and safety and fire safety assessments – it did not do this. The landlord did recognise in its response that it was not ideal for the resident to be entering or leaving the property while the scaffolding was in place given the type of scaffolding used, which was necessary due to the layout and size of the area. However, again, there is no evidence that it had specifically considered fire safety concerns.
15. The resident’s concern about a covered smoke alarm was appropriately addressed by landlord which identified it was common practise to protect the alarm from dust and that there was another smoke alarm in the property.
16. The landlord adequately explained that the problem of plaster dust in itself did not require the resident to be moved out as it could managed sufficiently with a dust extraction unit. However, it is noted below that the plaster dust resulting from the repair work was not managed so not to cause the minimal level of disruption.
17. In his communication to the Ombudsman the resident stated he only had access to his living room and kitchen when the main works were ongoing, and stated he did not have access to his bathroom. Although not totally clear, this suggests he did not have access to WC facilities. However, there is no evidence to show that this specific point was raised with the landlord during the complaint and therefore the Ombudsman is not able to make a judgement on whether there was service failure by the landlord in respect to a lack of toilet facilities for the resident. Damage from plaster dust
18. The resident raised concerns regarding plaster dust and wanted compensation for damage to his carpet and for professional inspection/cleaning of electrical goods. It was reasonable for the landlord to respond by confirming that the resident had been sent its compensation claim form which when returned would then be dealt with by its Risk Insurance Service. This is because it is the role of insurers to assess whether there had been negligence by the insured, and therefore whether it is liable for losses claimed.  The landlord did also acknowledge a shortcoming in its approach to managing the problem of plaster dust confirming that a dust extractor should have been used during the works.  The landlord was not clear in its response on issues raised by the resident regarding operatives not covering gaps around doors and whether floor coverings were used appropriately; however these issues were intrinsically linked to the resident’s claim and therefore would also be matters for the consideration in the compensation claim.   
19. The resident did also raise that breathing in the plaster dust was a health concern. It is not the Ombudsman’s role to make a judgement on health issues. If the resident wishes to pursue this issue it would be more appropriately dealt with via a personal injury claim or legal action where the landlord’s liability for damage to health can be determined.

Duration of works

20. The landlord acknowledged that the works took longer than expected in part due to the nature of scaffolding used. It is not clear from the landlord’s records when the works were completed though the landlord accepted in its final response that there were outstanding works to be completed, along with rectification of some substandard work. As the final response was sent on 14 July 2021 this demonstrates the works had significantly overrun from the period initially identified to the resident. The landlord’s repair records also show plastering works arranged and completed after the final complaint response. The delay, which caused inconvenience to the resident, resulted from mistakes in the planning and delivery of the repair. While a general apology for inconvenience was made in the landlord’s response, given the length of the duration of works and the inconvenience caused to the resident it is the Ombudsman’s view that compensation should also have been provided for this service failure.

Other issues

21. The landlord acted reasonably in responding to the resident’s concerns about electrical wiring issues and problems with an electrical socket. Following the resident raising concerns it acknowledged that diagonally positioned wiring found at the property should have been corrected as it was not to current standards. It responded by isolating the area of the supply and offered to install trunked wiring on the wall to allow a socket in the hallway to be reinstated. It also agreed to replace an electrical socket which the resident believed dangerous as it contained plaster dust. The landlord confirmed that this would have been checked by the electrician but agreed to change it for the resident’s peace of mind.
22. The landlord’s solution to the resident’s concern about the quality of the plastering finish in some areas and outstanding works was also appropriate. Confirming that two supervisors had visited the property and agreed with the resident what needed to rectified showed that the landlord had taken the matter seriously and sought to resolve the issue. However, as mentioned above this extended the duration of the works causing inconvenience to the resident.
23. The landlord’s ‘gesture of goodwill’ in offering to redecorate the replastered area was a positive response. However, it is not uncommon for social landlords to assist with redecorations where these are damaged by repair works. The Ombudsman has taken this gesture into account when considering appropriate compensation.
24. The resident raised concern that one of the operatives who attended his property was dressed in shorts and a t-shirt rather than a work uniform. The landlord responded to this issue by confirming that the relevant supervisor had been made aware of this with the request that he checks operatives are suitably dressed. This is an appropriate response as this issue will not have had a significant impact on the resident.
25. The resident also raised concern that he was left without heating and hot water from 14 June 2021 to 22 June 2021. The landlord claims not to have been aware of this problem until it was reported on the 22 June 2021 when it was repaired the same day. The evidence provided to the Ombudsman does not show that this was reported earlier by the resident. Therefore, the landlord did respond within its 24 hour target time and it was appropriate for the landlord to point this out in its response.

Conclusion

26. Overall, there was maladministration in the delivery of the plastering repairs. The approach to informing the resident about the work was inadequate and the work overran due to deficiencies in the planning and delivery. This includes a failure to consider fire safety concerns, in particular from the installation of scaffolding. The resident was not appropriately compensated for these failings. There were other shortcomings in the service provided by the landlord, but these were appropriately addressed in the landlord’s complaint response.

Determination

27. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in the way it dealt with the plastering repairs to the resident’s home.

Order

28. The landlord to pay the resident £300 for the distress and inconvenience caused by its failures in providing information and the planning/delivery of the plastering repairs. This is in addition to any compensation paid for the damage to the resident belongings.

Recommendation

29. The landlord should review its approach to providing information to and consulting with residents about lengthy works that will cause disruption. The landlord should look to provide written confirmation of likely disruption, measures that will be put in place to minimise the disruption, and any requirements on the resident.