Tower Hamlets Homes (202227785)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202227785

Tower Hamlets Homes

13 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 repairs to the resident’s windows.
The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s complaint handling as part of this investigation.

Background

The resident is a secure tenant of the landlord at the property since 2002. The landlord is a local authority. The property is a 4-bedroom, second floor flat and the landlord confirmed it had vulnerabilities recorded for the resident.
On 8 September 2022 the landlord raised a repair in response to the resident’s report that several window handles in the property were broken, and windows in the living room and bedroom did not fully close. The resident raised a complaint to the landlord on 11 October 2022. She said the following:
1. The landlord had provided a repair date of 31 October 2022, despite that the resident had previously told the landlord she could only attend a Thursday or Friday appointment due to her working hours.
2. It had rearranged the appointment on 31 October 2022 to the morning of 6 October 2022 at the request of the resident, but the landlord had missed the appointment.
3. In the afternoon on 6 October 2022 the landlord had called the resident and told her it was on its way to the repair job and would arrive in 10 minutes.
4. The resident had called the landlord and was told this was not correct and it would be attending the following day.
5. The landlord attended on 7 October 2022 and a further appointment had been made in December 2022.
6. The appointment should have been deemed as an emergency as the property was freezing, a member of the household was on the at risk register due to a medical condition and another member of the household suffered from arthritis. She said she could not afford to heat the property but had no choice due to the cold.
7. She had been chasing the repairs for weeks.
The landlord provided a response to the resident at stage 1 of its complaints process on 25 October 2022. It said the following:
1. It had tried to contact the resident on 14 October 2022, and had sent an email to provide an update.
2. The resident had been advised that the complaint had been escalated to the repairs team with a request to bring the appointment date forward.
3. A works order was raised to its contractor on 8 September 2022 to address the issue with several window handles that had either broken or were loose and to further overhaul the windows in the bedroom and living room that were not closing properly.
4. The appointment on 6 October had been missed and the landlord had failed to advise the resident.
5. The contractor who had attended on 7 October 2022 had advised a window specialist was required to attend.
6. A follow-on appointment had been made for 31 October 2022 but this had been rearranged as the resident had been unavailable.
7. It had escalated to its contractor to ensure that all notes were reviewed and that availability was discussed with the resident prior to it arranging appointments.
8. The appointment had been rebooked for 15 December 2022 due to a high volume of window repairs and the resident’s limited availability.
9. It had asked the window repairs contractor to contact the resident by 21 October 2022 and it was sorry that this had not happened.
10. It offered the resident £50 compensation for the time and trouble, distress, and inconvenience caused, and £30 for the missed appointment.

The resident told the landlord on 26 October 2022 that the information in the stage 1 response was incorrect. She said the appointment on 31 October 2022 was not a follow-on appointment, but the initial appointment made after she chased the repair. The landlord’s window repair contractor attend the property on 1 November 2022 to assess the repair.

The resident escalated her complaint on 8 November 2022. She said she had received a text message from the landlord’s contractor which had said it was attending to a first visit, when she had already had a contractor visit on 1 November 2022. The messages received had also not been sent to the phone number she had asked the landlord to use for correspondence on the repair. She said the contactor had already taken a full report of the broken windows and handles and had advised the next step was to measure for this.
The landlord issued its final response to the resident on 22 December 2022. The landlord said the following:
1. It was sorry the windows had still not been repaired.
2. There was a miscommunication between the landlord’s contractor and its subcontractor. The contractor had passed the job onto a second subcontractor who had missed an appointment on 21 November 2022.
3. A £30 voucher had been issued for the missed appointment by one of the subcontractors on 21 November 2022.
4. The initial subcontractor had attended the property on 21 November 2021, and this contractor would now be carrying out the repairs to the windows.
5. The landlord was currently awaiting a variation order from its contractor for approval, so that the repairs could be carried out as soon as possible.
6. The subcontractor had been provided with the resident’s contact details and had been advised that appointments needed to be scheduled for a Thursday or Friday.
7. It provided the resident with the contact details for a repairs officer, for if she experienced any further delays.
8. The landlord offered the resident £100 compensation for any inconvenience caused by the delays.
The resident remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s response and contacted this Service in February 2023 to request an investigation. She said the repair was still outstanding and the repair job had been reallocated to a further contractor. The landlord confirmed to this Service that the repairs to the windows were completed on 25 August 2023. The landlord said it had offered the resident a further £540 in compensation for the for delays and the subsequent distress and inconvenience caused.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation.

In raising her complaint the resident referred to the situation impacting upon her health. While this Service is able to assess the service the landlord provided, and any overall distress or inconvenience this may have caused. The investigation cannot directly assess any reported impact on health or the liability for impacts on health and wellbeing, as this is better suited for the courts.

The landlord’s handling of repairs to the resident’s windows.

Under the terms of the tenancy, and in accordance with Section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 the landlord is obliged to keep in repair the structure and exterior of the resident’s home.
The landlord’s responsive repair policy states that emergency repairs will be completed within 24 hours, and routine repairs within 20 working days. The policy states that a routine repair includes the replacement of door and window furniture. The policy also states that works that require items to be manufactured such as windows, may take longer to complete.
The responsive repairs policy also says that for vulnerable residents, the landlord will always consider reducing the time taken where possible for repairs for frail, elderly, or disabled customers.
In regard to missed appointments, the responsive repair policy states the landlord will take all reasonable steps to minimise missed appointments, and to keep residents informed throughout the repairs process to assist in this. Its policy is to compensate residents for missed appointments in the form of a £10 voucher.
The landlord’s redress and compensation policy states that the level of financial compensation will be determined by the nature of the complaint. Where it is concluded that a resident has suffered financial loss or damage as a direct consequence of a justified complaint, the landlord should consider the payment of compensation, including for instances of distress, time, and trouble.
The landlord was responsible for the repair and maintenance of the windows in the resident’s property. The landlord raised the repair on 8 September 2022 and the repair was not completed until 25 August 2023. This was a timeframe of over 11 months in total. The landlord’s repair records noted a repair was carried out to the window handles and gap around the windows in the interim, in March 2023. However, this was over 5 months after the repair was first raised.
It was accepted that repairs of this nature may need a number of appointments and therefore may take longer than the stipulated timescales. In this instance, a window specialist was required which may have taken time to arrange. It was also noted that the resident had informed the landlord that she was only able to facilitate repair appointments on specific days of the week due to her working hours. The resident’s limited availability for appointments had impacted on the landlord’s ability to inspect and address the repairs. However, the landlord would still be expected to complete the works within a reasonable timeframe, and keep a resident informed about what was happening. Given the household vulnerabilities, it was also essential that the works at the property were prioritised to minimise the detriment to the resident and her family. The delay here to complete the repair was excessive and continued for 8 Months after the end of the complaints process. In consideration of the impact the lack of repair to the windows would have had during the winter months, this delay had a significant impact on the resident.
In her complaint, the resident stated the vulnerabilities within the household and the impact the outstanding repairs had on their health, including her own. The Ombudsman cannot draw conclusions on the cause of, or liability for, impacts on health and wellbeing. Nonetheless, consideration has been given to the general distress and inconvenience which the situation may have caused the resident. The landlord confirmed it had vulnerabilities recorded for the resident. However, no evidence was provided to this Service to demonstrate that the landlord took this into consideration when handling the outstanding repairs. The landlord should have taken reasonable steps to understand the impact on the resident of the continued delay to the repairs. The landlord had not demonstrated that it considered the vulnerabilities of the household in its response to the window repairs.
The resident had been clear in her complaint and in her correspondence with the landlord that the property was cold, caused by the draught from the faulty windows. She also told the landlord she had to heat the property, which had a financial impact on her. This caused distress, inconvenience, and financial detriment to the resident over a prolonged period of time. The landlord failed to demonstrate that it taken into consideration the financial implication on the resident of enduring additional energy costs or the impact of the excess cold on a vulnerable household. The landlord had failed to address the residents concerns here. It had demonstrated a poor level of customer service.
It was evident that the landlord had failed to communicate appropriately with the resident about repair appointments. The resident had told the landlord in October 2022 and again in November 2022 that due to working hours she had limited days in which she could provide access. The landlord confirmed to the resident in its stage 1 response on 25 October 2022 that it had escalated this information to its contractor. However, the resident received a further appointment via a text message for an unsuitable date. The message was also not sent to the phone number she had confirmed the landlord was to use for correspondence on the repair. The landlord had here again demonstrated a poor level of customer service. It had not put things right for the resident as it had set out in its stage 1 response. As a result, the resident had to take the time to further follow up with the landlord and its contractor to rearrange appointment times and provide again the correct contact details.
It was evident that the landlord had missed repair appointments on 6 October 2022, and 21 November 2022. The landlord offered the resident £30 compensation for the missed appointment on 6 October 2022, and its contractor issued a £30 voucher for the missed appointment on 21 November 2022. The landlord’s action here was appropriate and in excess of the amount stated in its compensation policy. This stated a £10 voucher would be provided for a missed appointment.
Throughout the complaints process, there was confusion about which subcontractor had been allocated the repair job. The landlord confirmed in its final response that this had been the result of a miscommunication. It had confirmed at stage 2 the details of the subcontractor who was to complete the repair. However, it was noted that this was then allocated to another subcontractor in January 2023, and reallocated again following this. It was evident that this failure to allocate the repair work appropriately had caused both further delays and inconvenience to the resident. The landlord had here not demonstrated that it had managed the repair work appropriately. Its failures here had highlighted concerns with its contract management and record keeping.
The landlord had failed to keep the resident updated on the progress of the repair. The resident was both following up with the landlord and the contractor’s subcontractor during the complaint period. It was evident that the resident had contacted the landlord to chase for an update on 18 October 2022, 8 November 2022, 14 November 2022, 16 November 2022, and 19 December 2022. She also told the landlord on 25 October 2022 that she had not received a call following her report that she had not heard from the landlord’s contractor. The landlord had here failed to communicate with the resident on the status of her repair. As a result, the resident incurred distress and inconvenience by not knowing when the repair would take place. She also incurred the inconvenience of taking the time to follow up with the landlord to find out the status of the repair. This was a further failure to communicate effectively with the resident.
At stage 1 of the complaints process the landlord told the resident the landlord’s contractor would contact her to arrange the next repair appointment. In its final response it said it was waiting for its contractor to provide a works order for the repair to be carried out as soon as possible. At both stages here the landlord had failed to provide the resident with a timescale for completion. As a result, the resident incurred further distress and inconvenience by not knowing when the repair would be completed. It was also evident that following the end of the complaint process, she also incurred the inconvenience of taking the time to follow up with the landlord to find out the status of the repair again. The landlord should have provided a clear and accurate timeframe for the completion of the repairs to set the resident’s expectations.
When a landlord agrees that it failed to provide a service, the expectation is for the landlord to offer redress. The landlord acknowledged in its final response that it had not carried out the repairs and that the resident had experienced a poor level of service. It had offered the resident compensation of £100 in addition to the £50 offered at stage one and the £60 for the missed appointments. Prior to this investigation, the landlord confirmed it had offered the resident a further £540 of compensation in consideration of the further delays and the subsequent distress and inconvenience caused to the resident.
The landlord’s late offer of compensation was not sufficient to avoid an adverse finding. The Ombudsman encourages local resolution of complaints even when the internal complaints process has been completed. However, it is expected that a landlord do all it can to resolve the matter while the complaints process is live. The Ombudsman considers it reasonable to consider the landlord’s offer post its complaints process as part of this investigation, as it was clear that it continued to work with resident to get the issue resolved following its final response. This also enables this investigation to progress the case to a full resolution. The landlord’s actions post its complaints process have however, been given less consideration than its actions during the complains process in arriving at an overall determination on the case.
In summary, the resident experienced excessive delays in the repairs to her windows, and poor communication on the progress of the repairs which caused her distress and inconvenience. There was miscommunication between the landlord, contractors, and subcontractors, with the repair reallocated at several points. The landlord had here not demonstrated that it had managed its contractors appropriately or monitored the repair. This had resulted in further frustration for the resident. The landlord had also not demonstrated that it had taken the household vulnerabilities into consideration when responding to the repair. The landlord attempted to put this right for the resident through a total offer of compensation of £750. However, this was not proportionate to the prolonged level of inconvenience and distress caused to the resident.
Furthermore, the landlord set out in its complaint response that it would attend to the outstanding repairs in order to put things right. However, it had not followed through on this action in an appropriate timeframe. This demonstrated it had failed to learn from the outcomes of its complaint investigation. As such there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of repairs to the resident’s windows. In consideration of the overall length of time the resident was inconvenienced and the level of distress during this time. A further amount of £250 compensation is considered appropriate to account for the prolonged significant impact on the resident. This is in line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance for cases where the landlord’s failures have had a serious and detrimental impact on the resident.

The landlord’s complaint handling.

The landlord’s complaint policy states it will acknowledge receipt of a formal complaint within 48 hours. It says the landlord will respond to informal complaints within 5 working days, stage one complaints within 10 working days and stage 2 complaints within 20 working days. The policy says that in more complex cases it may extend the timescales by a further 10 working days.
The Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code states that a stage 1 response should be provided within 10 working days of the complaint. It also explains that a stage 2 response should be provided within 20 working days from the request to escalate. If it is not possible for a landlord to respond within these timeframes, an explanation, and a date of when the response will be received is required. This should not exceed a further ten working days without good reason
The landlord’s records stated that the resident escalated her complaint on 8 November 2022. The landlord provided a response on 22 December 2022, which was a timeframe of 32 working days. This was not in line with the landlord’s complaints policy. This stated that the landlord would respond to a stage 2 complaint within 20 working days. It also did not meet the standards set out in the Code.
It was noted that the landlord had emailed the resident on 9 December 2022 and told her it had kept the complaint open because it had not had confirmation of the repair appointment. It said the complaint response would be extended until 16 December 2022. The resident was dissatisfied with this, and the landlord then confirmed it would not be extended and a response would be provided. However, it was a further 9 days before the landlord issued its final response. The further delay here was inappropriate and had caused the resident the time and trouble of following up with the landlord again on 19 December 2022.The landlord’s communication here was poor. It had failed to keep the resident updated on when she could expect a response.
The landlord made a subsequent offer of compensation upon reviewing the case in August 2023. The landlord had here attempted to put things right for resident and account for the further delay following the end of the complaint period. The landlord’s further offer of compensation is to be commended on one hand as this demonstrated a flexible and resolution focussed approach. On the other hand, however, its is essential that member landlord’s do all they can to ensure that complaints reach a reasonable conclusion while the complaints process is live as this is the appropriate route for such resolution action. The landlord had here not followed the Code which states a complaint should be resolved at the earliest possible opportunity.
To provide a fair response, landlords are expected to resolve complaints by addressing both the main issue raised and any inconvenience that happened. When a landlord agrees that they have failed to provide a service, the expectation is for the landlord to offer redress. The landlord attempted to resolve the substantive complaint through an offer of compensation. However, this offer did not account for the complaint handling failures identified.
In summary, there was a delay in the landlord providing its final response and poor communication. As such there was a service failure in the landlord’s complaint handling. It would be appropriate for the landlord to pay the resident compensation of £75 for the inconvenience, time, and trouble caused. This is in line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of repairs to the resident’s windows.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Orders and recommendations

Orders.

The Ombudsman orders the landlord to apologise to the resident for the failings identified in this report.
The Ombudsman orders the landlord to pay the resident a total of £1075 in compensation. This amount includes the £210 of compensation offered during the complaint process, and the £540 offered in August 2023. Compensation not already paid, should be paid directly to the resident, and not offset against any arrears. The compensation comprises of:
1. £940 or the significant inconvenience and distress caused to the resident by the landlord’s failures in its handling of the repairs to the resident’s windows.
2. £60 as previously offered for the missed repair appointments during the complaint period.
3. £75 for the inconvenience, time and trouble caused by the landlord’s poor complaint handling.
The landlord is to provide evidence of compliance with the above orders to this Service within four weeks of the date of this report.

Recommendation

It is recommended that the landlord reviews staff training needs in regard to the importance of communicating with residents throughout the repair process.