Tower Hamlets Homes (202232217)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202232217

Tower Hamlets Homes

8 April 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 response to the resident’s request to repair his front door.
The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

The resident is a secure tenant of the landlord, which is a local authority. The tenancy began on 15 November 2021. The landlord has no recorded vulnerabilities for the resident.
The property is a 2 bedroom flat on the ground floor.
The resident contacted the landlord on 13 January 2023 to report a fault with the door frame which meant his door was “not closing at all or locking properly.” The landlord attended on 16 January but was unable to complete the repair so a new appointment was raised. The resident was dissatisfied with the quality of the subsequent repair that was carried out on 25 January. He reported that issues with the contractor’s workmanship had caused more problems. A contractor attended on 1 February to repair the frame but other works remained outstanding. In his email to this Service on 19 May the resident reported that works to the door remained outstanding.
The resident raised a stage 1 complaint on 13 January 2023 because he was dissatisfied with the landlord’s response that it would not attend to fix the door frame as an emergency.
The landlord issued its stage 1 complaint response on 27 January 2023. It apologised that the contractor who attended on 16 January did not have enough time to complete the required works. It confirmed that a new appointment had been raised for 1 February. It offered £30 compensation in recognition of the time and trouble caused.
On 27 January 2023 the resident requested to escalate his complaint because he did not feel the amount of compensation offered was sufficient.
The landlord issued its stage 2 complaint response on 15 March 2023. It said that on receipt of the complaint it raised a recall order which the contractor cancelled in error believing that works had been resolved on 1 February. It apologised for the failure and said it had addressed the issue with the contractor to enforce service levels expected of it. It confirmed that a new recall order had been raised and that the contractor would contact the resident to make an appointment. It apologised for the “shortcomings in service delivery” and increased the compensation to £80 for “inconvenience and distress.”
On 19 May 2023 the resident emailed this Service to advise that the door was not fixed. He said it was causing a draught to enter the property making it expensive to heat. He said he had asthma and his 2 children were 20 months old. He sought compensation for loss of earnings and increased costs in heating his home.

Assessment and findings

Landlord’s obligations, policies and procedures

The landlord’s responsive repairs policy says that it splits general repairs into 2 main categories depending on the urgency of the work. Emergency jobs are attended to within 2 hours to make safe and prevent danger if required, with additional works completed within 24 hours. Such works could include making secure external doors because of a break in or vandalism and where there is a security or injury risk. Normal priority/routine works are completed within 20 working days. These include replacing door and window furniture (if there is no safety or security risk).
The landlord’s complaints policy and procedure says it aims to respond to stage 1 complaints within 20 working days in line with its Corporate Complaints policy. However, it also aims to respond to as many complaints as possible within 10 working days in line with the Housing Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code). It aims to respond to stage 2 complaints within 20 working days. The landlord may extend the timescale by a further 10 days at both stages of the complaints process.
The landlord’s redress and compensation policy (compensation policy) states that “the Ombudsman advises that time and trouble payments would normally fall within the range of £25 to £250. In exceptional cases, a higher amount could be recommended.”

Repair

The landlord’s responsive repairs policy says that emergency jobs include making secure external doors because of a break in or vandalism and where there is a security or injury risk. In a telephone call to this Service on 27 March 2024 the resident advised that when he first reported the repair on 13 January 2023 the door would not lock properly and was therefore not secure.
In the landlord’s response to this Service on 20 July 2023 it said the repair was reported by the resident “as an emergency stating that the door was not closing at all.” It was therefore inappropriate that the landlord declined to raise an emergency repair on that day. Furthermore, it demonstrated a lack of regard for the resident’s welfare and safety which undermined the landlord/resident relationship.
The contractor attended 3 days later, on 16 January 2023. The door frame was fixed. However, the whole repair was not completed because the operative had not been allocated enough time for the appointment. In his phone call to this Service on 27 March 2024 the resident said the contractor left without checking that the door locked. The ongoing concerns about security and the draught entering the property compounded the distress caused to the resident by the original delay.
In its stage 1 complaint response of 27 January 2023 the landlord apologised for the delay and inconvenience caused. It appropriately set out its learning and action taken to ensure it would not reoccur again in the future. It offered £30 compensation for distress, inconvenience, time and trouble caused.
The landlord’s records show that it raised a further works order on 23 January 2023. It attended again on 25 January to carry out further works to the door locking mechanism. The contractor noted that the door “closes tighter and no draughts detected.” The landlord’s stage 1 complaint response of 27 January failed to mention this appointment. It only referred to an appointment provisionally booked for 1 February therefore its response was not complete which was inappropriate.
On 27 January 2023 the resident emailed the landlord by way of reply to its stage 1 complaint response. He referred to the appointment on 25 January, not referred to in the complaint response, and said the contractor had made the situation worse. He said the lock had been damaged and the frame cut down causing “severe draughts.” He added that pieces of the hinge and door frames were missing and the door handle was loose. The landlord replied on the same day, 27 January, to reassure the resident that all outstanding issues would be rectified during the appointment on 1 February.
A contractor attended site on 1 February 2023 but only addressed issues with the door frame. In its email to the landlord on the same day, 1 February, the contractor said it had misread the resident’s email of 27 January and thought he was still referring to the frame. This caused further distress to the resident because it caused an additional delay in resolving the repair. This was particularly inappropriate given that the landlord had assured that this appointment would provide a resolution to the substantive issue.
On 6 February 2023 the landlord emailed the contractor regarding the recall works order raised on 17 January and requested it contact the resident “urgently.” On 7 February it raised the recall order to remedy all outstanding works. The works remained outstanding on 21 February, when the landlord’s repairs inspector attended the property. He raised the recall which was cancelled in error by the contractor believing that all works had been resolved on 1 February. It therefore raised a further recall on 7 March to carry out works including the lock, the door tilt, gaps in the door, loose door handle.
In the landlord’s stage 2 complaint response of 15 March 2023 it apologised for the contractor cancelling the recall works order. It set out its learning from the complaint and action taken to ensure there was not a recurrence. It confirmed it had raised a new recall order and increased the offer of compensation to £80 for inconvenience and distress.
On 16 March 2023 the resident emailed the landlord to say the contractor had attended again but he remained dissatisfied with the work carried out. He said the ongoing issues were causing him financial difficulties because of the increase costs of heating the property due to the draughts through the door. The landlord replied on 13 April to apologise that the works were incomplete and said it had asked its repairs team to update the resident.
In his telephone call with this Service on 27 March 2024 the resident said the door was finally fixed around December 2023. He said various contractors had attended but did not have the right parts to fully resolve the repair. Being self- employed he considered it reasonable that the landlord should compensate him for loss of earnings at £50 per day. He felt this should be applied for the 8 appointments for which he made himself available but had not provided a resolution. He also said he was left with a gap of approximately 2 centimetres in his door which caused an increase in his heating bills.
The Ombudsman’s dispute resolution principles are to be fair, learn from outcomes and put things right. In his email to the landlord of 27 January 2023 the landlord requested compensation for loss of earnings and an increase in heating costs. There is no evidence that the landlord provided a response to the residents on these specific points which was unreasonable.
This investigation has identified failures, including:
1. The landlord failed to allocate an emergency priority to the resident’s original repair request on 13 January 2023.
2. The landlord did not ensure its contractor had sufficient time to resolve the substantive issue during the appointment on 16 January.
3. The landlord’s contractor did not resolve the substantive issue during the appointment on 1 February as promised.
4. The landlord’s contractor incorrectly cancelled the recall order believing all works had been resolved on 1 February.
5. In April 2023, 4 months after the resident first raised his complaint, the door repair remained outstanding.
These failures amount to maladministration because there was a failure which adversely affected the resident. The landlord has failed to acknowledge all its failings and has not put things right. The landlord has offered £80 compensation for the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident. Considering the number of failures identified, including a failure to raise an emergency order, and the period taken to resolve the repair, this investigation has ordered the landlord to pay the resident £350 for the distress and inconvenience caused. This is in line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance where there was no permanent impact. The landlord may deduct the £80 it has offered if this has already been paid.

Complaint Handling

The landlord appropriately responded to the resident’s stage 1 complaint of 13 January 2023 within 10 working days, in line with its complaints policy.
The Code states that the landlord must provide a stage 2 complaint response within 20 working days of the complaint being escalated. Exceptionally, landlords may provide an explanation to the resident containing a clear timeframe for when the response will be received. This should not exceed 10 days without good reason.
The resident emailed the landlord to request to escalate his complaint to stage 2 of the process on 27 January 2023. The landlord provided its stage 2 complaint response on 15 March, 33 working days later, and 13 working days over target.
On 9 February 2023 the landlord emailed the resident to advise that due to staff shortages it was taking approximately 30 working days to respond to stage 2 complaints. The Code says that landlords may extend the 20 day response time by 10 further days in exceptional circumstances and where there is good reason to do so. This Service expects landlords to ensure it is adequately resourced to be able to provide a complaint handling service which meets the requirements of the Code. Therefore, its explanation of the delay was inappropriate.
The Code states that landlords should keep residents regularly updated about the progress of the investigation. However, there is no evidence that the landlord provided an additional update with regards to timescales in between its email of 9 February 2023 and the issuing of the response on 15 March. This was inappropriate because it further eroded the landlord/resident relationship and caused additional distress to the resident. Furthermore, the landlord failed to acknowledge the delay in its stage 2 complaint response which would have been reasonable.
The Code states that the landlord must address all the points raised in the complaint. The resident’s stage 1 complaint of 13 January 2023 was about the landlord responding to the door repair on a routine basis rather than as an emergency. Neither the stage 1 nor stage 2 complaint response explained why it had categorised the works as such which was inappropriate.
The resident’s stage 2 complaint of 27 January 2023 specifically requested more compensation because issues with the contractor’s workmanship meant the door would not lock. He said he had suffered a loss of earnings. The landlord failed to address the resident’s request. It offered £80 for inconvenience and distress but failed to provide an explanation as to why it arrived at that amount. Therefore, the resident could have no confidence that it had considered his request which caused further distress.
The landlord failed to demonstrate that it had used the resident’s complaint to review its practices, learn from outcomes and make service improvements. This is because it failed to address the initial complaint about the response time and the underlying cause of the ongoing issue, which was concerns about the quality of workmanship.
There were failures associated with the delay at stage 2 of the process. Both the stage 1 and stage 2 complaint responses failed to address all the points in the resident’s complaint. The landlord failed to use the complaint as a learning opportunity. Given that there were several failures this investigation finds that there was maladministration. The landlord has been ordered to pay the resident £150 which is in line with the Housing Ombudsman’s remedies guidance for maladministration where there has been no permanent impact.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s request to repair his front door.
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 is ordered to:
1. Pay the resident a total of £500 compensation, comprised of:
  1. £350 for the distress, inconvenience, time and trouble caused by the landlord’s response to the resident’s request to repair his front door. The landlord may deduct the £80 it has offered if this has already been paid.
  2. £150 for the distress and frustration caused by the complaint handling failures.
2. Write to the resident to apologise for the failings in the case. It should set out its learning and what it will do differently to avoid a recurrence.
3. Contact the resident to discuss his request for compensation for an increase in heating costs and loss of earnings. It should review the evidence and write to the resident to set out its decision and reasons. A copy of the letter should be provided to the Ombudsman, also within 4 weeks.
Within 6 weeks of the date of the determination the landlord should carry out a self-assessment of its complaints policy against the new Housing Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code. A copy should be provided to the Ombudsman, also within 6 weeks.