Stevenage Borough Council (202211783)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202211783

Stevenage Borough Council

8 March 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:
1. response to the resident’s reports regarding repair issues at her property;
2. complaints handling.

Background and summary of events

Background

The resident has been a secured tenant at the property of the landlord since August 2021. The landlord is a local authority.
At the time of the complaint, the landlord operated a three stage complaints policy. The policy notes that a stage one response will be provided within 10 working days of a complaint. A stage two response will be provided within 15 working days of an escalation, and a stage three within 20 working days of a further investigation.
The landlord operates a responsive repairs policy. The policy notes that the landlord is responsible for repairs to the structure of the property. It will also carry out repairs to kitchen units and baths. Routine repairs should be completed within 20 working days.

Summary of events

On 18 October 2021, the resident raised a formal complaint regarding her kitchen and bathroom. She noted that the kitchen was non-standard in design which made it difficult to use. In particular, she noted the radiator was inaccessible behind the kitchen units. She also reported it was in a poor state of repair.
Her complaint also included that the bathroom had a bath which she found difficult to use due to her disability. She also reported that all of the plumbing work was behind permanent tiling so she could not access it. She noted that prior to moving in, she had to wait two months for void works to be completed, but it was not evident what these works were. She also expressed concern that when she reported these issues to her housing officer, she had been told it would not be addressed until the next programme of planned works, which was in 11 years.
Around this time, the resident also reported that her front door was not closing securely and that she was experiencing issues with leaks. Additionally, she reported that her windows were in a poor state of repair.
The landlord has provided this service with its internal communications from the period of the complaint. It is evident that there are multiple departments within the landlord, including a repairs team, an assets team, and a voids team. It is evident that an inspection was completed on 21 October 2021 to assess the resident’s concerns; however, following this the landlord’s internal communication demonstrate there was some confusion about which team needed to take action.
The landlord’s internal communications noted that the resident had not expressed any concerns with the kitchen or bathroom at the time of viewing, and that she had not noted any physical disabilities on her application form. It also noted that while the kitchen was non-standard, both the kitchen and the bathroom were functional and met its letting standards, so they were not replaced. The landlord’s internal communications make reference to informing the resident of this position at “stage one.” However, this service has not been provided with a written formal stage one response and from the context of the communications it is possible this was a verbal stage one response.
On 8 December 2021, the resident requested her complaint be escalated. She noted she did not consider she had received a formal complaint response, and that she had been informed that her complaint had been closed. She also noted she had not received any updates since the landlord’s inspection in October 2021, despite multiple requests.
The landlord’s internal communications from December 2021 also demonstrate there was confusion about which team needed to respond to this stage of the formal complaint. One such communication dated 30 December 2021 indicated that the repairs team had marked all repairs as completed and forwarded the issue to the assets team, but that the assets team had replied that it was a repair issue. As such, no team had taken responsibility for the complaint.
The landlord provided its stage two response on 24 January 2022, which included the following:
1. It apologised for the delays and explained its position that the kitchen and bathroom had met its lettable standards at the time the property was let and so had not been replaced.
2. It advised that following its inspection in October 2021, however, it had determined the kitchen units were in a poor state of repair, but were of a discontinued design. As a result, it had arranged for its contractor to provide a quote for a replacement kitchen.
3. Regarding her bathroom, it noted that the bathroom was functional and so would not automatically be replaced. It also noted that there had been an Occupational Therapist inspection given the resident’s disabilities, and that it would assess any required works upon receipt of the report.
4. Finally, regarding the state of repair of the front door and the windows, it advised it had arranged an inspection.
On 31 January 2022, the resident requested her complaint be escalated again. She advised she had received no further contact regarding an inspection of the kitchen, that the landlord’s contractor had cancelled the inspection of the door and windows, and that she had been unable to get through to any department at the landlord despite multiple attempts.
Throughout March and April 2022, the resident made further requests for updates. She also reported her concerns to her local councillor, who raised the issue with the landlord. The landlord’s internal communication throughout April 2022 once again demonstrated there was confusion about which team was required to respond.
An internal communication dated 20 May 2022 noted that the landlord had agreed to replace the kitchen, and that it would also replace the bath, toilet and sink. It had also instructed its contractor to replace the front door and that it had agreed to replace the windows. The landlord’s notes show that the kitchen was replaced by 30 June 2022.
On 1 July 2022, the resident noted that the landlord’s contractor had attended to repair the door, but that they declined to replace the window to the side of the door. It is evident that the landlord chased this up with its contractor and that the quote provided had not included this window. The landlord subsequently arranged for a further inspection of this window.
It is evident that by 1 August 2022, the door had been replaced but the side window was not. The resident subsequently reported that the door did not close properly due to the distorted frame of the side window. She also reported that the door was leaking as a result.
On 2 August 2022, the landlord advised the resident that it would attempt to repair the window in the first instance, and that it would also find out when the next cyclical replacement programme was due.
The landlord provided its stage three response on 16 August 2022, which included the following:
1. It apologised for its poor communication throughout the period of the complaint.
2. It noted it had replaced the bath, toilet, and sink, in line with the Occupational Therapist’s recommendations. It also noted it had renewed the kitchen.
3. It further noted that the door, along with some of the windows, had been replaced.
4. Regarding the side window, it advised that this was functional and that it would be replaced in the next programme of works.
Following the stage three response, the resident continued to report issues with the door closing, and multiple issues with leaks as a result. The resident has confirmed with this service that the issues with the side window were satisfactorily repaired as of 23 November 2022.

Assessment and findings

Repairs

As noted above, the landlord has a responsibility to inspect reports of repair issues within 20 working days. Following the resident’s reports of concerns about her kitchen and bathroom in October 2021, the landlord appropriately arranged an inspection by 21 October 2021, which was reasonable in the circumstances, and in line with its policy.
Having carried out this inspection, the Ombudsman would expect the landlord to provide the outcome of its inspection and arrange any required works within a reasonable timeframe. In this case, however, the landlord’s response was delayed due to its poor internal communication.
Given that the resident’s reports were a formal complaint at this stage, the Ombudsman would expect the landlord to have internal systems in place for a member of the landlord to take ownership of the complaint, and liaise with the relevant service delivery teams as appropriate. In this case, no one team took ownership of the case, an multiple different teams refused to take ownership of the issue due to the nuances of the resident’s concerns making it unclear exactly who had responsibility. This caused unnecessary delays, during which the resident expended time and trouble chasing updates.
It is evident that after some back and forth between the various teams, the landlord determined that the concerns were not a voids issue due to the kitchen and bathroom having been assessed as meeting the lettable standards of the landlord. This service has not been provided with the landlord’s lettable standards; however, it is not disputed that while the kitchen and the bathroom were old, they were broadly functional, aside from access issues with the radiator and pipework. This service has also not been provided with the resident’s application form; however, it is not disputed that the resident had not informed the landlord of any physical disabilities at the time of the application, nor that she had raised any concerns about using the kitchen and bathroom at the time of viewing.
The resident has raised concerns that other properties had the kitchen and bathrooms replaced during voids periods. The Ombudsman cannot comment on why other properties may have had works carried out. The Ombudsman understands, however, that the landlord has a responsibility to manage its funds and resources effectively, and that where facilities are functional, it is reasonable not to renew them by default. In the absence of contrary evidence, the landlord’s position regarding why it had left the existing kitchen and bathroom in place was reasonable. The landlord has referenced that it provided this position as part of its stage one response, however, this service has not been provided with evidence that a stage one response was issued. The landlord’s complaint’s handling is discussed further below.
Regardless of whether this position was provided, either verbally or otherwise, given that the resident had since raised concerns about the present state of repair of these rooms, the Ombudsman would expect the landlord to provide its position on this concern as part of its response, rather than simply an assessment from the voids period. Additionally, given that the resident had also reported issues with her front door and windows, any response should have included the landlord’s position on these issues. It is not evident this occurred, however.
Despite the landlord having completed an inspection to help understand the issues, it is evident that following the resident’s request that her complaint be escalated in December 2021, there remained confusion within the landlord as to which team would take ownership of the complaint. The landlord even noted that its repair team had written in its notes that the complaint should be delt with by the assets team, while the assets team had indicated it was a repairs issue. It is not evident that the landlord had any process in place to reconcile these two positions, or for a central complaints team to take ownership of the response. This unreasonably added to the delay in the landlord updating the resident, despite multiple requests from her, and would have caused her considerable distress and frustration.
Given the significant delays to it taking action following its initial inspection, contrary to the timescales in its repairs policy, it was appropriate that the landlord apologised for these delays in its stage two response. It also used this opportunity to provide an update regarding the outcome of its inspection. Given that the kitchen was in a poor state of repair and that it could not have individual units replaced due to being discontinued, it was appropriate that the landlord used its discretion to replace the whole kitchen. It would have been helpful, however, if it had provided a timeframe or a contact for further correspondence on this arrangement, however, it did not do this.
As noted above, the landlord has a responsibility to manage its funds responsibly and given that the bathroom was functional, it was reasonable that it did not immediately replace it. The landlord would be expected to make any reasonable adaptions as recommended by an Occupational Therapist, and so it was appropriate that the landlord confirmed it would do so and that it noted a report was being prepared.
Finally, given that four months had elapsed since the resident’s reports about her door and windows without any update, it was appropriate that the landlord confirmed these would be inspected. It is concerning, however, that it is evident these were not part of the landlord’s inspection in October 2021, despite the concerns having been raised by the resident at this time. Once again, the landlord also failed to provide a timeframe or specific contact person for this inspection, which given the delays, would have been appropriate.
The landlord’s failure to provide specifics regarding the kitchen replacement and door/window inspections resulted in further distress for the resident as she subsequently reported no one had contacted her and that she had been unable to get in touch with anyone who had responsibility at the landlord. Once again, the landlord’s internal communications indicate there was confusion internally as to who was responsible.
While the landlord’s internal communications from May 2022 demonstrate it appropriately agreed to carry out works to the bathroom in addition to the kitchen, in line with the Occupational Therapist’s recommendations, it is not evident that it formally informed the resident of this at the time, nor did it provide a timeframe in which this would be completed. The landlord’s communications also show it agreed to replace the windows, but once again it is not clear which windows it agreed to replace, nor is it clear whether it informed the resident of this decision.
Regarding the side window, at no point prior to the works to the door commencing did the landlord clarify whether it would or would not replace this window. The contractor’s explanation that it would not replace the window on the basis it had not quoted for this indicates that there was some confusion in the instruction as to what needed replacing. The landlord would not have needed to clarify this if it was initially clear that it was not to be replaced.
As noted previously, the Ombudsman acknowledges the need for the landlord to manage its funds, and an approach of seeking to repair something prior to replacing it is entirely reasonable. This must be accompanied by reasonable communication, however, and in this case, the landlord’s repeated failure to clarify its intentions caused unreasonable distress for the resident. While its subsequent arrangement of a further inspection was appropriate given the ongoing issues experienced by the resident, at this point, almost 12 months had elapsed since the resident first raised her concerns and it is unreasonable that the landlord did not have a firm understanding of the issues and whether a repair or replacement was required.
It is evident that the landlord’s next inspection determined that the side window was fit for purpose and on this basis, it advised that it would be replaced during the next cyclical programme of works. Given its assessment at this time that the window was fit for purpose, this advice was reasonable. However, given that the resident continued to report problems, it was appropriate that the landlord carried out further inspections, and that ultimately it replaced this window and repaired the door appropriately. The Ombudsman notes that this process took a further three months to complete, however.
In its final formal response, the landlord appropriately acknowledged that its communications had not been to standard throughout the period of the complaint. The landlord failed, however, to consider the impact this had on the resident, or consider if compensation was appropriate, despite its compensation policy noting compensation for time and trouble should be considered.
In summary, the delays in this case were far in excess of the landlord’s policies, and were the result of repeated instances of poor internal communication and a failure to take ownership of the complaint. This failure appears to be attributable to deficiencies in the landlord’s policies, which are discussed further below. The severe delays to the landlord taking action or communicating its intentions or positions within reasonable timeframes amount to maladministration in this case, for which compensation is appropriate.
Having assessed the kitchen in October 2021, the landlord did not carry out works until June 2022. There was no clear explanation for the delay, despite multiple requests for updates from the resident (although the Ombudsman notes there was a short delay as a result of the resident being on holiday). On the basis that there was an eight month delay, less one month for the period the resident was unavailable, an amount of £700 compensation has been ordered, being £100 for every month of the unreasonable delay.
Additionally, the landlord was not in a position to carry out works to the resident’s door until July 2022. Therefore, a further £800 compensation has been ordered to reflect the 8 months of unreasonable delays.
Regarding the window, while the landlord’s position to attempt a repair was ultimately reasonable, there was significant confusion caused by its communications, for which £250 compensation is appropriate to reflect the time and trouble caused to the resident.
In addition to the above, an order has been made for a senior member of the landlord to contact the resident and apologise for the distress and inconvenience the failures to manage the repairs in this case have caused.

Complaints handling

At the time of the complaint, the landlord operated a three stage complaints policy. It is not clear from the wording of the policy as to whether a response can be given informally, i.e. verbally. The policy also appears to be applicable to the local authority as a whole, rather than specifically the landlord. This service has published a complaints handling code which sets out that a two stage policy should be adopted and that all responses should be in writing. An order has been made below that the landlord self-assess itself against this code and review its existing policy to implement changes to bring it in line with the code.
Regardless of the above, the landlord’s policy required that it provide a stage one response within 10 working days of a formal complaint. The resident made a formal complaint in October 2021, however, it is not evident that she ever received a stage one response, as noted in her subsequent escalation in December 2021. While the landlord’s internal communications referenced a stage one response, the landlord has not been able to demonstrate this was provided. Alternatively, if it considered its verbal discussions to be a formal response, this was not sufficient in the circumstances and the resident was left unclear about the landlord’s formal position.
Following her escalation request, the landlord did not provide its stage two response until 24 January 2022, which was also beyond the timeframes noted in its policy. While the Ombudsman understands that it can take additional time to investigate a complaint, the Ombudsman would expect in such instances for a landlord to contact a resident to measure their expectations about delays, and provided an updated timeframe for the response. The landlord did not do this.
Following the resident’s further escalation in January 2022, the landlord did not acknowledge this complaint, and also did not respond to her multiple requests for updates until eventually it was prompted to respond by the resident’s councillor in April 2022. At this time, the landlord’s internal communication noted it should respond within 20 working days, however, the landlords final response did not come until August 2022, which was a significant delay, once again without any interim updates.
As noted above, this is attributable to the landlord’s internal teams failing to take ownership of the complaint, and expecting other teams to do so instead. While the Ombudsman considers it useful for a specific service delivery group to be involved in a complaint response and resolution, it is best practice for a complaints team to take ownership of the complaint and manage the landlord’s response. It is not evident the landlord has such a system in place, and despite its assurances that it had learned from its errors, these were repeated again and again.
In the circumstances, the repeated missed deadlines and the repeated failures to effectively manage the complaint amounted to maladministration. Had the landlord not acknowledged its communication had been poor, this would have been a finding of severe maladministration.
While this acknowledgement was appropriate, it does not remedy the impact and frustrations these delays caused. In the circumstances, an order of £250 compensation has been made to reflect the impact on the resident.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration by the landlord in respect of its:
1. response to the resident’s reports regarding repair issues at her property;
2. complaints handling.

Orders

The Ombudsman orders the landlord to pay compensation of £2,000, comprising:
1. £700 for any distress and inconvenience caused to the resident by its delays in carrying out works to her kitchen;
2. £800 for any distress and inconvenience caused to the resident by its delays in carrying out works to her door;
3. £250 for any distress and inconvenience caused to the resident by its poor communication regarding her side window;
4. £250 for its ineffective complaints handling.
This amount must be paid within four weeks of the date of this determination.
Within four weeks of the date of this determination, a senior member of the landlord is to write to the resident and apologise for the failings identified in this case.
The landlord is to self-assess its complaints policy against this service’s Complaint Handling Code, to ensure it is compliant with all complaint responses moving forward. This can be found at https://www.housing-ombudsman.org.uk/landlords-info/complaint-handling-code/.