Stonewater Limited (202011072)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202011072

Stonewater Limited

16 June 2021

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 of repairs required to the intercom system at the property,
2. response to the resident’s reports of repairs required to the communal back door to the property,
3. complaints handling.

Background and summary of events

The resident is a leaseholder of a two bedroom flat in a block of flats, the freeholder of which is the landlord.
The landlord’s repairs policy says that the landlord is responsible for all external repairs to the structure. The cost, or part of the cost of works undertaken by the landlord, will be added to a leaseholder’s annual service charge bill. For repairs that don’t pose an immediate danger, or cause serious damage, or aren’t other high priority, an appointment will be offered within a 20 working day timescale, or to suit tenant requirements.
The landlord’s complaints policy says that if a resident remains unhappy following the landlord’s stage one response to their complaint, they may ask for a review within 15 working days of receiving the Stage 1 response. Then, the landlord will respond within 10 working days, if longer is needed it will let the resident know.
On 28 March 2020 the Government issued guidance for landlords, tenants and local authorities concerning the Covid 19 pandemic. The guidance recommended that “access to a property is only proposed for serious and urgent repairs.”
On 18 May 2020 the Housing Minister sent a letter to all social housing residents saying that “As we start to ease lockdown measures, landlords should be able to carry out routine as well as essential repairs for most households. There will be a backlog of repairs that they will need to address, so it may take longer than normal to carry out more non-essential work…”
On 1 June 2020 the Government issued updated guidance for landlords, tenants and local authorities concerning the Covid 19 pandemic. The guidance said that landlords “can now take steps to address wider issues of repairs and safety inspections, provided these are undertaken in line with public health advice” and that “Where workforce is available and resources allow, landlords or contractors are now able to visit most properties to carry out both routine and essential inspections and repairs, as well as any planned internal works.”
On 13 February 2019 the resident informed the landlord that the intercom buzzer to her flat was broken. The job is listed on the landlord’s repair log as “open”. The resident maintains that she contacted the landlord again a couple of months later and an engineer attended the property who said that he would need to return to carry out the repair work.
On 2 December 2019 the resident contacted the landlord to ask for an update on the repair work to the intercom and reported that the back door to the building was not opening and closing property, making it difficult for her to use as she often used crutches. The landlord arranged to replace the intercom system on 10 December 2019, however the landlord did not inform the residents of the block of this. The landlord’s contractors attended the building on 10 December 2019 and carried out some works, but some of the flats’ intercoms still required work.
On 2 January 2020 the landlord’s contractors contacted the resident and arranged to visit the property on 17 January 2020 to repair the intercom. Sometime following this the landlord wrote to all the residents to advise that the intercom system had been replaced in December 2019 and to advise the residents that the landlord required access to the properties on 10 January 2020.
The landlord’s engineer could not access the property on the morning of 10 January 2020. The resident called the engineer later that day and explained that she was confused as she had arranged for the landlord’s contractors to attend the property to carry out the work on 17 January 2020. The engineer informed the resident that there was no booking for an engineer to attend the property on 17 January 2020.
On 17 January 2020 an engineer attended the property and after inspecting the intercom informed the resident that he did not have the correct handset to repair it, and this would need to be ordered. Following the engineer’s visit the resident made a formal complaint to the landlord about its response to her reports of repairs required to the intercom at the property.
On 23 January 2020 the resident sent an email to the landlord saying that she wished to add some further issues to her formal complaint. She said that she had previously contacted the landlord about repairs required to the communal back door of the building. The door was not closing properly and children who were not residents were accessing the block.
On 4 February 2020 the landlord issued its stage one response to the complaint. In its response the landlord:
1. explained that its property manager had been asked to write to all residents to make them aware that the landlord’s contractors would be replacing the intercom system on 10 December 2019, however she had not done so. On 16 December 2019, the property manager had contacted the landlord’s Building Services Department to advise she had not sent the letter and asked for another date for the installation. The property manager was informed that the contractors had attended the property and had carried out some work but there were a few properties that still required work. The property manager then wrote to the residents to advise that the landlord still required access on 10 January 2019
2. explained that it had one department that managed repairs (‘Assets’) and one department that managed replacing/upgrading systems (‘Building Services’). When the resident had called the landlord on 2 December 2019 to discuss the access required on 10 January 2020 and the 17 January 2020 it could only view information on the Assets system and not the work that had been ordered by Building Services. Therefore, during the telephone call on 2 December 2019, the resident was not told that the intercom would be repaired the following week because its customer contact team would not have been aware that an order had been raised to replace the system
3. explained that the contractors who had attended the property on 17 January 2020 were Assets contractors who would not be in a position to carry out replacements and so weren’t in a position to fix the intercom
4. said that it would be feeding back to its Assets, Building Services and Customer Contact Team “as a learning curve and hope that going forward residents are not in this position again.”
5. apologised for the inconvenience caused and offered the resident £50.00 compensation.
On 16 February 2020 the resident sent an email to the landlord asking how she could escalate the complaint to stage 2 of its complaints procedure. The landlord replied on 18 February 2020 saying that it would prefer to keep the complaint at stage one. The resident sent a further email on 18 February 2020 again asking to escalate the complaint to stage two.
On 20 February 2020 the landlord sent an email to the resident saying that it was happy to review its stage one complaint once both the landlord and the resident were satisfied that the intercom repairs had been completed. The landlord asked the resident to advise it of the outstanding issues and queries so it could investigate them as soon as possible. The resident replied to the landlord on the same day again asking to escalate her complaint to stage two.
On 21 February 2020 the landlord sent an email to the resident asking to speak to her on the telephone so it could explain why it was not escalating the complaint to stage two.
On 21 February 2020 the resident sent an email to the landlord saying that she had asked to escalate the complaint to stage two on 7,16,18 and 20 February 2020. The landlord replied the same day and said that it “had the scope to review our stage one response/look at additional issues if we feel that it doesn’t require a stage 2 escalation.”
On 22 February 2020 the resident sent a further email to the landlord clarifying the complaint’s outstanding issues and again asking to escalate the complaint.
On 25 February 2020 the landlord sent a letter (incorrectly dated 25 January 2020) to the resident confirming that it would be escalating the complaint to stage two. The landlord said that it understood the resident’s concerns to be that:
1. the property manager had failed on “task response timeframes”
2. the intercom was still not fixed
3. the communal door was still getting stuck and was very difficult to close, meaning that children were accessing the block
4. she was unhappy with the level of compensation offered by the landlord at stage one.
On 10 March 2020 the landlord sent a letter to the resident headed “Complaint Commitment”. In the letter the landlord said:
1. That the property manager agreed she failed to keep residents up to date with the intercom system repair and it apologised for the inconvenience caused. It said it would ensure that it used the case “to learn from and to see where we need to improve with communication” and that “The team are site based staff but will also be reminded they need to make time to keep on top of their tasks and admin, to ensure we are meeting our service standards.”.
2. That it was expecting further news on the intercom system repairs imminently and it was monitoring the situation closely it would keep the complaint open until “we are all satisfied this repair has been completed”. The landlord apologised for the length of time it was taking to resolve the matter.
3. That it had raised an order to adjust the front and rear communal door closers to stop them slamming shut. It said that it would also fit door stops and repair damage to the plasterboard and would keep the complaint open until the work was completed.
4. That it had informed its Homeownership Team about children accessing the block and it hoped that the works to the communal door would improve the situation.
5. That it would feedback to its complaints team that the resident had struggled to escalate the complaint to ensure that it learnt from the situation. The landlord said that it allowed a review of a stage one complaint response only where it felt it could change the response to provide a more suitable response for the resident. However, the landlord accepted that if it had listened to all of the resident’s concerns when she first raised the complaint then all the issues would have been addressed in the stage one response and any changes wouldn’t have been necessary.
6. That in recognition of how long the intercom system had been broken, the amount of chasing the resident had had to do, the number of missed call backs and the additional stress caused by the landlord’s handling of the complaint, it increased the offer of compensation to £200.00.
7. That it apologised for the poor service the resident had received and thanked her for her feedback which would help it improve its service.
The resident sent an email to the landlord on 29 March 2020 raising further questions about the repair work to the intercom system and back door. The resident also said that she did not feel it was the correct time to agree the level of compensation as not all the elements of the complaint had been resolved. The resident also asked the landlord if she needed to escalate the complaint further as the landlord’s stage two response had not set out the next steps.
The landlord replied to the resident on 3 April 2020 saying that due to the Covid 19 pandemic restrictions it had reduced its repairs service to emergencies only and it would be in contact with the resident once it was able to complete the repairs to the intercom system. It also apologised that the back door had still not been repaired.
On 5 April 2020 the resident responded to the landlord by email saying that she did not think that the landlord could blame the Covid 19 pandemic for the repairs not having been done.
16 April 2020 the landlord sent an email to the resident repeating the findings of the stage one and two complaint responses, saying that when the Covid 19 restrictions had come into place it had been waiting for further information on the intercom and the order had been raised to repair the back door. The landlord confirmed that it would be happy to review the compensation once the repairs had been resolved.
On 25 May and 12 June 2020, the resident sent emails to the landlord asking for updates on her complaint.
On 25 July 2020 the resident sent a further email to the landlord asking for an update on the complaint as most of the repairs had been completed and asking why the back door had still not been fixed.
On 30 October 2020 the landlord sent a letter to the resident. In the letter the landlord said that the repair of the intercom system had begun in August 2019 and that there was only one resident left requiring a handset replacement and its contractors were in the process of arranging this. The landlord also said that its records showed the most recent back door repair as having been completed on 24 June 2020. It was unable to see any reports made since then to show that the back door was broken again.
In its letter the landlord also responded to a query the resident had made as to why she had been charged £250 in her service charge for a repair to the back door. The landlord said that “as a result of the emergency repair request to address the door there was not enough time to consult with residents. However, due to not consulting we are required to cap the cost being charged to residents to a maximum of £250.00 per property.”
The landlord said that its letter dated 30 October 2020 was its final response to the complaint.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of repairs required to the intercom system at the property.

In its responses to the complaint the landlord:
1. acknowledged that it had failed to inform the resident that its contractors would be attending the property on 10 December 2019 (see paragraph 9 above),
2. acknowledged that it had given the resident incorrect information during the telephone conversation on 2 December 2019 (see paragraph 9 above),
3. acknowledged that the contractors who had attended the property on 17 January 2020 weren’t in a position to fix the intercom (see paragraph 12 above),
4. acknowledged that it had failed to keep residents up to date with the intercom system repair,
5. apologised for the length of time taken to repair the intercom system,
6. said that it would be feeding back to its Assets, Building Services and Customer Contact Team to learn from the complaint,
7. apologised for the poor service the resident had received and thanked her for her feedback which would help it improve its service,
8. in recognition of how long the door entry system had been broken, the amount of chasing the resident had had to do, the number of missed call backs and the additional stress caused by the landlord’s handling of the complaint (see paragraphs 42 to 44 below), offered compensation of £200.00.
When there are failings by a landlord, as is the case here, the Ombudsman will consider whether the redress offered by the landlord put things right and resolved the resident’s complaint satisfactorily in the circumstances. In considering this the Ombudsman takes into account whether the landlord’s offer of redress was in line with the Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles; be fair, put things right and learn from outcomes.
The landlord acted fairly by acknowledging its failings in handling the intercom repair and in its communication concerning the intercom repair. It also acted fairly by apologising for the length of time it had taken to repair the intercom system and for the poor service that the resident had experienced.
The landlord demonstrated that it had learnt form outcomes by feeding back to its Assets, Building Services and Customer Contact Team to learn from the complaint.
The landlord offered compensation in the sum of £200 in recognition of how long the intercom system had been broken, the amount of chasing the resident had had to do, the number of missed call backs and the additional stress caused by the landlord’s handling of the complaint. The issue of compensation for the complaints handling is addressed separately (see paragraph 43 below).
According to the Ombudsman’s guidance on remedies the sum of £200 is below the range of remedies for distress and inconvenience in cases where there has been considerable service failure or maladministration, but there may be no permanent impact on the complainant. Examples could include failure over a considerable period of time to act in accordance with policy – for example to address repairs.
Whilst the repairs were understandably delayed during the Covid 19 restrictions between 28 March 2020 and 1 June 2020 the delays in starting and completing the repairs to the intercom system were significant. The resident first reported problems with the intercom system in February 2019, however repairs were not completed until June/July 2020. Not counting the days during the Covid 19 restrictions there were at least 290 working days between the resident reporting the problem with the intercom system and it being repaired. This is significantly outside the 20 working day timescale for repairs set out in the landlord’s Repairs Policy.
The Ombudsman considers that the landlord’s response was not proportionate, and that the landlord has not made redress to the resident which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, resolves this aspect of the complaint satisfactorily. The measures taken by the landlord to redress what went wrong were not proportionate to the impact that its failures had on the resident. The £200 compensation was not sufficient to put right the distress and inconvenience experienced by the resident as a result of the landlord’s failings set out in the previous paragraph.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of repairs required to the communal back door to the property.

There is no evidence that the landlord took any action concerning the door following the resident’s reports of repairs required on 2 December 2019 (see paragraph 9 above). The resident raised the issue with the door in her stage one complaint on 23 January 2020 (see paragraph13 above). Following the resident’s further email on 22 February 2020 the landlord raised a repair order on 4 March 2020.
Whilst the resident disputes what repair work was carried out, the landlord’s repair logs show that the repair order was closed, and the landlord maintains that the repair was completed on 24 June 2020. Taking into account the days when the repairs could not be carried out during the Covid 19 restrictions the repair took 98 working days to complete, 79 working days longer than the timescale of 20 working days set out in the landlord’s repairs policy. The landlord’s delay in carrying out the repairs required to the communal back door to the property was therefore inappropriate and additional compensation has been ordered to put this right.
The resident queried why the landlord had added £250 to the service charge bill for the repair to the door. The landlord’s repair log says that the order raised on 4 March 2020 to “Adjust front and rear communal door closers to stop doors slamming shut and also fit door stops. Repair small dents on plasterboard wall where handle has caused damage.” was carried out. The Ombudsman has not seen evidence of any further reports of repairs required to the door until January 2021. The landlord acted appropriately and in line with the provisions of its repair policy in passing on to the resident the cost of works it had undertaken to the door.

The landlord’s complaint handling

In its responses to the complaint the landlord:
1. said that it would feedback to its complaints team that the resident had struggled to escalate the complaint to ensure that it learnt from the situation,
2. acknowledged that if it had listened to all the resident’s concerns when she first raised the complaint then all the issues would have been addressed in the stage one response.
3. said that its offer of £200 compensation was in recognition of various failings including those relating to complaints handling.
The Ombudsman considers that the landlord’s response was not proportionate, and that the landlord has not made redress to the resident which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, resolves this aspect of the complaint satisfactorily. The complaint handling failures were significant:
1. the landlord’s failure to escalate the complaint when asked to do so by the resident was in breach of the provisions of its complaints process that a resident can escalate their complaint within 15 working days of receiving the Stage 1 response
2. the landlord informed the resident on 18 February 2020 that it “had the scope to review our stage one response/look at additional issues if we feel that it doesn’t require a stage 2 escalation.” although the provisions its complaints policy do not set this out
3. the resident made six requests to escalate the complaint
4. none of the landlord’s three complaint responses provided information on how the resident could escalate her complaint
5. in its email dated 16 April 2020 the landlord informed the resident that it would be happy to review the compensation once the repairs were resolved. There is no evidence that it has done so
6. between April 2020 and October 2020, the resident had to chase the landlord to update her on the complaint
7. the resident made her formal complaint in January 2020, but the complaint did not exhaust the landlord’s internal complaints process until October 2020, some nine months later.
Whilst the landlord has informed this Service that between April and September 2020 its customer relations team were operating at a reduced capacity which had an impact on its ability “to respond or carry out actions in our usual timescales”, the measures taken by the landlord to redress what went wrong were not proportionate to the impact that its failures set out in the previous paragraph had on the resident. Accordingly, additional compensation has been ordered to put right this part of the complaint.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was service failure by the landlord in respect of the complaints about the landlord’s:
1. response to the resident’s reports of repairs required to the intercom system at the property,
2. response to the resident’s reports of repairs required to the communal back door to the property,
3. complaints handling.

Reasons

The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of repairs required to the intercom system at the property.

The measures taken by the landlord to redress what went wrong were not proportionate to the impact that its failures had on the resident.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of repairs required to the communal back door to the property.

The landlord acted inappropriately in not repairing the door within the time scale set out in its repairs policy.

The landlord’s complaint handling

The measures taken by the landlord to redress what went wrong were not proportionate to the impact that its failures had on the resident.

Orders

The landlord is ordered within four weeks of the date of the determination to:
1. pay the resident the £200 compensation previously offered if it has not already done so
2. pay the resident an additional amount of compensation totalling £275 comprising of:
  1. £100 for the distress and inconvenience incurred by the resident as a result of the landlord’s failures in responding to the resident’s reports of repairs required the intercom system
  2. £100 for the distress and inconvenience incurred by the resident as a result of the landlord’s delay in repairing the back door
  3. £75 for the distress and inconvenience incurred by the resident as a result of the landlord’s failures in handling her complaint.
3. visit the property to establish if further repair work is required to the back door and confirm in writing to the resident, and to this Service, the target date for any remedial works to be completed.