Southend-on-Sea City Council (202309216)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202309216

Southend-on-Sea City Council

23 September 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 the resident’s request for it to:
1. reinstate an external security gate.
2. install external lighting by his flat.
The Ombudsman has also assessed the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

The resident has been a secure tenant of the landlord since June 2014. He lives with his partner, who is a joint tenant in a 2 bedroom ground floor flat.
It is unclear when the resident first raised his concerns that the security gate had been removed. It is also unclear when he first expressed his concern that there was insufficient external lighting by his flat. However, it is noted that the security gate had been removed before he moved into his flat.
On 21 August 2022 the resident made a complaint. He said:
1. all the other households in his block had external lighting outside their flats. They also had a “door” to prevent people from going around the back of the properties. His flat did not have either.
2. there had been several incidences that the landlord was aware of where “kids” had been “checking out” his garden. However, it had not installed a door or any lighting. He requested that the landlord installed lighting and a gate.
On 6 October 2022 the landlord issued an informal complaint response. It said:
1. it had inspected the property and found that the security was in line with similar properties in the block.
2. it was not planning to carry out any additional works in the relation to the security “either now or in the future”.
On 10 October 2022 the resident escalated his complaint. He said:
1. the landlord had not responded to his complaint about the lack of lighting. He reiterated that all the other flats had lighting outside their flats and a door that prevented people from going around the black of their properties. His did not.
2. people would wander off of the streets onto the back path and look at resident’s gardens. There had been a gate to prevent this but it had been removed before he moved in.
On 2 November 2022 the landlord issued its stage 1 complaint response. It said:
1. it had visited the premises both during the day and night and found no specific need to add additional lighting. It had found no evidence to change that decision.
2. if there was a specific need to provide additional lighting due to a recommendation from the antisocial behaviour (ASB) team it would reconsider its decision.
3. it was unable to ascertain why the gate had not been reinstated. It would reinstate it in accordance with its standard timescales.
On 24 November 2022 the resident escalated his complaint. He said:
1. there was meant to be communal lighting outside each flat, which was not the case. He was not asking for additional lighting, but lighting that should have already been fitted for safety and security reasons.
2. there had been many reports to the ASB team, including reports about break-ins.
On 23 January 2023 the landlord escalated the resident’s complaint.
On 21 February 2023 the landlord issued its stage 2 complaint response. It said:
1. the reinstatement of the gate remained outstanding. It raised an order for the works, including any necessary works to the associated concrete.
2. it stood by its previous decision about the lighting.

Legislation, policies and procedures

Landlords are required to consider keeping a dwelling secure and safe using a risk assessment approach called the Housing Health and Safety Rating System (HHSRS). Entry by intruders is a potential hazard that can fall within the scope of HHSRS. HHSRS does not set out any minimum standards, but it is concerned with avoiding, or minimising potential hazards. The threat of an unauthorised entry can cause health effects such as mental harm/stress/anguish and physical injuries where the victim has been attacked by a burglar.
The landlord’s website states that it would complete routine repairs within 28 days of receiving the report.
The landlord’s complaint policy states that it operates a 2 stage complaint process. It states that it would respond to stage 1 complaints within 10 working days and within 20 working days for stage 2 responses.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s request to reinstate the external gate

It is unclear when the resident first raised concerns that the gate had been removed. The resident has stated that he had been previously told that the gate would be reinstated by the landlord. While the resident’s comments are not disputed, we the date of this interaction is unknown. In addition, we have not been provided with any other evidence in relation to this this. Therefore, based on the evidence that is available, we have considered the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns from August 2022.
In his complaint, the resident raised concerns that he did not have a door that prevented people from going round the back of his flat. In response, the landlord carried out an inspection and reported that it would not be possible to install a main entrance door.
It appears from the inspection report that the landlord may have misinterpreted the resident’s concerns. It is noted that the resident referred to a “door” and a “gate” interchangeably within his correspondence, and that as a result the landlord may have misunderstood his request. However, given that the resident referred to two different types of security measures, it would have been reasonable for the landlord to have clarified the issue with the resident. This would have ensured that it fully understood his concerns and that it could consider his request in full. There is no evidence that the landlord sought clarification from the resident, and this was a missed opportunity.
In its November 2022 stage 1 complaint response the landlord acknowledged that there had been a gate previously installed. It said that it would reinstate the gate within its policy timescales. The landlord’s website states that that it would complete routine repairs within 28 days. However, at the time the resident chased the landlord for an update in January 2023, the gate had not been reinstated. The reason that the gate had not be refitted within the landlord’s published timescales is unclear. However, that it had not is a failing. It had committed to do so in its complaint response. Therefore it was unreasonable that the resident incurred time and trouble pursuing the matter again approximately 2 months later.
In its February 2023 stage 2 response, the landlord acknowledged that the gate had yet to be reinstated. While it provided an assurance that the works would be completed, this did not go far enough to put matters right. Given the delays, It would have been reasonable for it to have provided compensation in recognition of the time and trouble the resident incurred. We have therefore found that there was service failure in the landlord’s response to the resident’s request to have the external gate reinstated. We have also made a series of orders aimed at putting things right.
The resident has recently informed this Service that the gate has not been reinstated. It is noted that there was some further discussion between the resident and the landlord about the matter after the complaints procedure was exhausted. The reasons the gate was not reinstated is unclear from the evidence provided to this Service. As these events took place after the conclusion of the complaints procedure, we are unable to consider them as part of this investigation. It is noted, however, that the landlord had provided the resident with confirmation that the gate would be reinstated as resolution to his complaint. As such, if it is unable to reinstate the gate, it should communicate this clearly to the resident, together with an explanation as to why. Its decision should also take into consideration the outcome of an appropriate risk assessment. If the resident remains unhappy with the landlord’s decision, this would have to be raised as a new complaint. The resident can refer the matter back this Service as a new complaint if he remains unhappy with the landlord’s final response in relation to the matter.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s request to have external lighting installed buy his flat.

It is noted that the resident has stated that the landlord has failed to install lighting that had been “missing.” However, our investigation does not extend to whether or not there was a failure to install lighting when the building was constructed or when neighbouring lights were installed as this was not the complaint that went through the landlord’s internal complaint process.
The landlord is obliged, under the tenancy agreement, to repair and maintain. To install new lighting would amount to an improvement, and there is no obligation on the landlord to carry out improvements.
Therefore, we have assessed how the landlord considered the resident’s request and whether its handling of the matter was fair and reasonable in all of the circumstances.
It is unclear whether the resident had raised his concerns about the external lighting before he made his complaint in August 2022. It is noted that the resident stated in his complaint that the landlord was aware that there had been incidents where “kids” had been “checking out” his garden. However the date of this is unknown and we do not have evidence to support this. Our duty is to determine complaints by reference to what is, in the Service’s opinion, fair in all the circumstances of the case. Therefore, based on the evidence available, the assessment of the landlord’s handling of this matter will start from when the resident raised his complaint in August 2022.
In his complaint, the resident explained that the other flats in his block had lights outside of their flats, there had been incidents where children had been “checking out” his garden. He requested that the landlord install lighting.
In response, the landlord carried out an inspection. It reported that there was no need for additional lighting in the area. This was reiterated in the landlord’s complaint response to the resident. However, the evidence available suggests that the landlord did not carry out a risk assessment or give consideration to the HHSRS.
Given that the resident had raised concerns about the safety and security of the area, it was unreasonable that the landlord did not carry out a risk assessment. If it had done so, it could have demonstrated that it had fully considered whether there were any risks that could be avoided or mitigated through the installation of lighting. That it did not was a failing.
The resident continued to raise his concerns that there was insufficient external lighting by his flat. He also stated that there had been ASB over the years and lighting would help prevent these incidents.
The landlord’s final decision on the matter remained the same. It said that it would reconsider its position if it received a recommendation from the ASB team. This was unreasonable. Given the circumstances, it would have been reasonable for the landlord to have made inquiries with the ASB team and other relevant agencies as to whether ASB reports had been made by residents in the area. It could have also sought input from the ASB team as to whether additional lighting was needed, or if it would serve as a deterrent. There is no evidence that it did so. That was a further failing. If it had done so, it would have demonstrated to the resident and itself that it had taken a proactive and adequate approach in its investigation.
Overall, the landlord failed to:
1. carry out a risk assessment.
2. consider the resident’s views that other flats had had lighting outside their flats and his did not.
3. engage with internal and external partners to ascertain whether additional lighting in the area would be needed.
Therefore, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for external lighting to be installed outside his flat.

The landlord’s complaint handling

The resident raised made a complaint on 21 August 2022. The landlord issued an informal response on 6 October 2022. This was 32 days after the resident had made his complaint. The complaint policy that the landlord has provided to this Service does not include details about an informal complaint stage. It is also unclear whether the policy was in place at the time of the resident’s complaint. Therefore from the evidence that is available, it is unclear whether the landlord had acted in accordance with its policy.
Nonetheless our March 2022 Complaint Handling Code (the Code) stated that it was not appropriate for complaints to be handled ‘informally’, at ‘stage 0’, ‘pre-complaint stage’ or in any other way that keeps the complaint outside of the complaints process. Therefore that the landlord handled the resident’s complaint informally at that time was not appropriate. Furthermore, given that the Code states that stage 1 complaints should be issued within 10 working days, that it took it 32 days to provide an informal response was unreasonable and a further complaint handling failure. There is also no evidence that it had kept the resident informed of its delay at that time. That it did not, may have caused him time, trouble and distress.
In his original complaint, the resident stated that the other flats in his block had lights outside of his flat and his did not, which was a concern. In its informal complaint response the landlord said that the security was in line with similar properties in the block. This response did not fully answer the resident’s concerns. Given that the resident was concerned that his flat lacked lighting that other flats had, it would have been reasonable for the landlord to have specifically addressed this. This would have demonstrated that it had acknowledged, understood and addressed the resident’s specific concerns. As it had not, the resident reiterated this concern in his October 2022 escalation request. This may have been avoidable if the landlord had adequately addressed the concern in its previous response. It is noted that it missed another opportunity to acknowledge or address it again in its stage 1 response.
The resident responded to the landlord’s stage 1 complaint response on 24 November 2022. It is noted that the landlord asked the resident to clarify whether he wanted to escalate his complaint the day after. While it is unclear, the evidence available suggests that the resident did not reply at that time. The reason why he did not is unknown. However, the evidence suggests that he was unaware that the landlord did not escalate his complaint. This is because he contacted the landlord on 23 January 2023 and raised concerns that it had not issued a further response to his concerns.
Our Complaint Handling Code (the Code) states that if all or part of the complaint is not resolved to the resident’s satisfaction at stage 1 it must be progressed to stage 2 of the landlord’s procedure, unless an exclusion ground applies. It is noted that the landlord sought clarification on whether the resident wanted to escalate his complaint. However, it is the Ombudsman’s opinion that the resident raised sufficient concerns and questions about the landlord’s response that should have reasonably prompted the landlord to escalate the complaint on 24 November 2022.
It would have also been reasonable for the landlord to have asked the resident again for clarification when it did not hear from him. This would have ensured that the resident’s complaint was dealt with effectively in a timely manner. As it did not, the resident was unaware that his complaint had not been escalated and subsequently chased the landlord for an update. This caused him time, trouble and distress.
Taken into consideration the failures highlighted in this investigation, we have found that there was maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.
On 8 February 2024, the Ombudsman issued the statutory Complaint Handling Code. This Code sets out the requirements landlords must meet when handling complaints in both policy and practice. The statutory Code applies from 1 April 2024. The Ombudsman has a duty to monitor compliance with the Code. We will assess landlords using our Complaint Framework and take action where there is evidence that the requirements set out in the Code are not being met. In this investigation, we found failures in complaint handling. We therefore order the landlord to consider the failings highlighted in this investigations when reviewing its policies and practices against the statutory Code.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for it to reinstall the external gate.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for it to install external lighting.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Orders

Within 4 weeks of the date of this determination, the landlord should do the following:
1. apologise to the resident for the failings highlighted by this investigation.
2. pay the resident £400 compensation, which is comprised of:
  1. £150 for the time, trouble and distress caused by its handling of his request to reinstate the gate.
  2. £150 for the time, trouble and distress caused by its handling of his request external lighting to be installed.
  3. £100 for the time, trouble and distress caused by its complaint handling.
3. contact the resident to provide clarification around the installation of the gate. If the landlord cannot install the gate, it should provide the resident with a clear explanation as to why. The landlord should also ensure that its decision has taken into consideration an appropriate risk assessment. A copy of the correspondence should be shared with the Ombudsman.
4. carry out a risk assessment in relation to the resident’s concerns that there is not sufficient external lighting by his flat. The landlord should also seek input from its ASB team. The landlord should share the outcome of this with the resident and the Ombudsman.