Tower Hamlets Homes (202302593)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202302593

Tower Hamlets Homes

15 August 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:
1. Response to the resident’s concerns about the length of time scaffolding had been up at the property.
2. Complaint handling including knowledge and information management.

Background

The resident is a leaseholder of the property, which is a 3 bedroom maisonette located on the second floor of a block which is managed by the landlord.
In May and June 2019 a surveyor carried out inspections of the building. Scaffolding had already been erected around the building to give access to the floors and the roof of the building (the date the scaffolding was erected is unclear although it is not disputed by either party that it was in 2019). The survey identified defects to the external building fabric. This included the external walls, the concrete upstand and handrail to the side of the walkway and areas of water penetration. It recommended that repair works be carried out.
On 21 November 2019 the resident advised the landlord that she was scared to stay in her flat due to the scaffolding all over the block. She advised that she was single mother and had been staying with her parents due to her concerns. She asked when the scaffolding would be removed. She chased a response on 5 December 2019 and stated as follows:
1. The scaffolding had been up since around February 2019 but no work had taken place. The scaffolding impacted on her significantly, blocking light and causing a security risk.
2. She queried why no work had been carried out if the scaffolding had been put up to prevent falling concrete.
3. She had not received any section 20 consultation paperwork and no information had been provided from the landlord.
The landlord responded on 12 December 2019 and advised that it had written to residents of the block on 30 October 2019 to explain the proposed works (this has not been seen by this Service) and that the scaffolding was in place to prevent falling concrete. It advised that some works would begin in the summer (it did not specify which summer although it would be reasonable to assume this was the summer of 2020). It acknowledged the frustration caused.
There was a lengthy gap in correspondence provided to this Service until 8 April 2021 when the resident chased an update on the scaffolding and the works. The landlord responded on 15 April 2021 and apologised that the works had been delayed due to “various reasons”. It advised that it was finalising procurement which would enable it to proceed to the consultation and works stage and it would provide an update shortly. The resident requested an indication of the timeframe of the works and advised that herself and other residents had been waiting for around 4 years for works to start and that this was impacting their wellbeing. She also advised of leaks in the roof. There was a further gap in correspondence seen by this Service until 9 September 2021 when the landlord wrote to the residents of the block and asked for resident representatives to form a steering group in respect of the works. It sent further correspondence on 8 December 2021 and invited residents to take part in a “walkabout” to discuss the proposed works and answer their questions.
The landlord advised residents on 27 May 2022 that an alarm on the scaffolding had been found to have been turned off (it did not state when) and it had not informed residents of this. It apologised and advised that the alarm had been reactivated. It reminded residents not to trespass on the scaffolding and encouraged them to call the police if they witnessed this. It advised that Section 20 notices would be issued in June 2022.
There was a gap in correspondence seen by this Service until the resident submitted a complaint on 12 December 2022 in which she reiterated her concerns about the scaffolding having been in place for 4 years and the Section 20 consultation not having taken place. She stated the scaffolding made the property unsafe (as residents had been assaulted by people on the scaffolding) and as a single parent she did not feel she could stay in her property alone. She stated that the scaffolding made the properties dark and oppressive and it prevented the full use and enjoyment of them. The landlord responded at stage 1 of its complaints process on 5 January 2023. It stated that discussions were still ongoing about the works. It advised her it would update her once it had an update. The resident escalated her complaint on 12 January 2023. On 2 February 2023 the landlord contacted her to advise that it needed more time to respond at stage 2 and that it would respond by 23 February 2023.
The landlord responded at stage 2 on 24 February 2023 and stated as follows:
1. It had identified in 2019 that the building was suffering from severe spalling concrete with large sections of concrete becoming de-bonded from the structure.
2. At the time, the contractor was already on-site carrying out major works on the adjacent blocks. It had asked the contractor to erect emergency scaffold to the block to protect residents and the public. This was to be a temporary measure until works could be agreed.
3. It was subsequently found that the contractor did not have the capacity to deliver any additional works and the re-procurement of these services took place. It had assumed that the work would have been able to be issued “very soon”. Delays in executing the contract resulted in an extension in the timeline which was also compounded by the COVID-19 pandemic. In addition, lessons learnt from previous projects, meant a change in scoping was implemented, which took longer than it had anticipated.
4. It apologised for the delays and any inconvenience this may have caused.
5. It confirmed that the scoping, tendering and procurement had been completed and Section 20 notices would be issued in 3 – 4 weeks. It hoped to start works around May 2023.
The resident referred her complaint to this Service on 23 March 2023 and stated that due to the scaffolding she had been living in the dark, the block had had thefts and assaults arising from people climbing on the scaffolding and into properties and residents had been unable to sell or rent properties for 4 years. The landlord had not issued a Section 20 notice for major works and works had not begun.

Correspondence following the referral to this Service

In March 2024 the landlord advised this Service as follows:
1. It had explored the option to complete the required concrete repairs within the existing contractor contract and Section 20 notices had been issued. The Section 20 notices had been subsequently cancelled, due to constraints and there being no mechanism within the existing contract to provide variation of works and increased cost. This resulted in the scaffolding remaining in situ since 2019 for safety reasons. It had initially expected the scaffolding to be in place for around 18 months. The scaffolding had been considered the best option to be utilised for the completion of the works.
2. It had not carried out an assessment of any likely impact of the scaffolding remaining in place for an extended period of time, on residents or the security of the building. It had not taken any action to mitigate any such impact nor did it carry out any such impact assessment.
3. The works had not commenced but it hoped to do so in the “next few months”.

Assessment and findings

Response to the resident’s concerns about the length of time scaffolding had been up at the property

The landlord has a better neighborhoods programme of works information booklet which states:
1. Before works start, it will send leaseholders a Section 20 notice to let them know the type of work it intends to carry out and an estimate of how much it will cost.
2. Before the works start, it will write to residents to let them know the details of the works, when works will start and how long it is expected to take.
3. For works that impact residents day–to-day activities, it will let residents know when it will be holding face-to-face meetings with residents.
4. It will make the scaffolding as secure as possible, including enclosing the base to prevent access, installing scaffold alarms and removing or locking and access ladders.
The landlord has a repair obligation to maintain the structure of the building and it is not disputed that the building required repairs. It is also not disputed that the scaffolding had been in place at the block since before June 2019 and it was at this time that required works were identified by the landlord. The landlord advised residents that the scaffolding was erected for safety reasons to prevent falling concrete. This was an appropriate way to ensure the safety of residents and the surroundings whilst works were arranged.
It is not clear when the landlord first advised residents in the block of the required works. The landlord’s correspondence stated that it had written to resident’s in August 2019 in respect of the works, although this communication has not been seen by this Service. It therefore cannot be determined what the landlord advised the resident in respect of the works required, or the length of time the scaffolding was likely to remain in place.
The resident first raised her concerns with the landlord on 21 November 2019 about the impact of the scaffolding. It is reasonable to conclude that at this stage the scaffolding had been in place for at least 6 months. She described a significant impact on her and that she did not feel safe as a single mother to stay at the property due to the presence of the scaffolding. She advised she had been staying with her parents due to this. Although it is unclear how long she spent away from the property, it is clear that the scaffolding being in situ caused her significant distress and impacted on her use and enjoyment of the property, which she described as being dark.
Despite making the landlord aware of the impact the scaffolding was having on her the landlord did not respond to her query about how long the scaffolding would remain. This was not in line with the information contained within its better neighbourhoods programme of works information booklet. She further chased a response on 5 December 2019 where she again descried the scaffolding as blocking light into her property. The landlord’s response to her concern (12 December 2019) stated that the works would begin in the summer. This was vague and did not answer the resident’s question about the length of time the scaffolding would remain. Although the landlord acknowledged the frustration caused, the response was generic and it failed to address her safety concerns or the lack of light to her property. The landlord did not outline any steps that it was taking to assist residents, such as security information or whether it was considering ways to minimise the blockage of light. This was not appropriate and the landlord failed to demonstrate that it had taken steps to address the resident’s concerns.
The landlord confirmed to this Service that it had not carried out an assessment or impact assessment of the likely impact of the scaffolding remaining in place on resident’s or the security of the building. It did not provide any reasons for this. This was not appropriate given the length of time the scaffolding had been in place and the impact which the resident described on both herself and other residents. There is no evidence that the landlord took any steps to alleviate these concerns or improve the situation for residents of the block.
It is noted that the landlord advised residents on 27 May 2022 that the alarm on the scaffolding had not been switched on and that it had failed to inform residents of this. It did not indicate how long this alarm had been switched off for and as such it was not transparent with the residents about its failure. It is concerning that in light of the resident’s reports of security concerns, the landlord had not checked the alarm was working when she raised her concerns or taken other appropriate action to secure the scaffolding such as lock and ladder security. Given the resident’s concerns of intruders on the scaffolding, this is something the landlord should have been proactive at checking and ensuring that sufficient security features were in place and were working. This Service has not seen any evidence that the landlord checked other security features of the scaffolding such as base gateways being secured to prevent intruders. It therefore could not demonstrate that it had taken all the steps it could have done to investigate the security concerns.
This Service has not seen evidence form the landlord that it proactively updated the resident in respect of the works or how long the scaffolding was likely to be in place. It is noted that the landlord stated that it had sent communications to residents about the requirements for the works and the opportunity for them to feed back their concerns, however this Service has not seen any evidence that the landlord took any action following concerns raised by the resident. Although the landlord invited residents to take part in a steering group and a walkabout in respect of the works, this was not until September and December 2021, at which point the scaffolding had been in place for around 2 and a half years. It is not clear why such resident engagement was not offered at an earlier opportunity. The landlord therefore missed an opportunity to understand and respond to resident’s concerns at an earlier stage.
This Service has not seen evidence of proactive correspondence from the landlord to the resident between 12 December 2019 until 15 April 2021, a period of 16 months. This lack of correspondence was not appropriate. It is noted that the landlord email from 15 April 2021 was as a result of the resident chasing an update and was not therefore a proactive update from the landlord. This response was vague and the landlord apologised for the delay in commencing the works which it stated was due to various reasons. By this point the scaffolding had been in place for around 2 years and such a vague response was dismissive in tone and did not demonstrate open communication or a resident focused approach.
In addition, within her correspondence to the landlord from April 2021, the resident had advised of leaks in the roof. This Service has not seen any evidence that the landlord responded to this report or took any action to investigate the leaks. This was not appropriate and not in line with its repairs responsibility for the structure of the building. This Service has not seen any evidence of correspondence between the landlord and the resident between 27 May and 12 December 2023, when the resident submitted her complaint. This gap again demonstrated that the landlord failed to keep the resident up to date.
The landlord’s stage 1 complaint response (provided on 5 January 2023) failed to respond to the resident’s concerns (this has been addressed further in the complaint handling section below). It was not until its stage 2 response (24 February 2023) that the landlord provided an explanation to the resident for the time the scaffolding had been in place and for the delay in commencing the works. This was over 3 years after the resident had first made such enquiries (November 2019). This delay was not appropriate. It is noted that the landlord advised that that COVID-19 pandemic contributed to the delay in the works.
Whilst it is acknowledged that the timeframe of the events included a period of national lockdown, this did not prevent the landlord from communicating effectively with the resident, which it failed to do. It is concerning that the landlord also relied on it implementing lessons learned from previous projects as a reason for the delay. Whilst continual learning is encouraged by this Service, the landlord did not provide details as to why such learning impacted its commencement of the works in this case.
In addition to gaps in correspondence, the landlord provided information which it then failed to follow through or update the resident that timeframes had changed. It had advised residents in the block that Section 20 notice would be issued in June 2022. This did not happen and this Service has not seen evidence of residents being provide with an updated timeframe. Within the stage 2 response (24 February 2023), the landlord advised that the Section 20 notices would be issued in 3 – 4 weeks (so by end of March 2023). This Service has not seen any evidence that this was followed through with.
It is noted that the stage 2 response advised that works should commerce in May 2023. The landlord advised this Service in March 2024 that works had not begun. This was around a year after the landlord had advised the resident the works would start. This was not appropriate. The information contained in the stage 2 response should have been transparent and the landlord should have followed up on its plan set out in the response. However, it did not do so and did not provide any further explanation of this. This Service has not seen any evidence that the landlord kept the resident up to date that it could not meet its advised date following the completion of the internal complaints procedure.
It is clear that the scaffolding was erected for safety reasons, which was appropriate and was in line with the landlord’s responsibility to minimise the risk of hazards stated in the Housing Health and Safety Rating System (HHSRS). However it had been in place from before June 2019 to at least March 2024. This is a period of almost 4 years during which the resident received little and vague communication from the landlord as to when works would begin. It is noted that the complaint responses failed to address the resident’s concerns about the security risk or the lack of full enjoyment of her property for the time period. The landlord did not demonstrate that it had taken sufficient action in keeping her proactively informed for around 4 years. In addition to not acknowledging or addressing her concerns, the only redress offered by the landlord was an apology. This was not appropriate. Given the length of time the situation had been ongoing, the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident and the impact it had on her (having to live elsewhere due to safety concerns for herself and her child), compensation would have been appropriate.
The failures of the landlord in this case amount to maladministration. To acknowledge the impact this had on the resident, and the lack of having the full use and enjoyment of her property for around 4 years, compensation of £800 has been ordered. This is in line with the Housing Ombudsman remedies guidance where a resident was significantly impacted by a failure of the landlord over a lengthy period of time. This takes account of the individual circumstances of the resident and that she felt she had to move out of the property for a period of time to feel safe and secure with her child.

Complaint handling including knowledge and information management

The landlord has a 2 stage complaint process. At stage 1 it aims to respond within 10 working days and at stage 2, within 20 working days. If additional time is required at either stage, it will keep the resident informed and may extend its response timeframe by a further 10 working days.
The landlord took 17 working days to respond at stage 1 (12 December 2022 to 5 January 2023). This was outside of its published response timeframe by 7 working days. This Service has not seen any evidence that it had advised the resident that additional time was required for this response. It therefore failed to show that it had acted in line with its complaints policy at stage 1.
When the landlord did respond at stage 1, its response was poor and did not address the issues raised by the resident. Instead it advised that discussions were ongoing about the works and it did not have an update for her at that time. This was inappropriate as the resident had raised specific queries as to the ongoing presence the scaffolding and safety concerns which the landlord failed to address.
The landlord took 32 working days to respond at stage 2 (12 January to 24 February 2023). It is noted however that the landlord had informed the resident of its need for additional time on 2 February 2023. It was appropriate for the landlord to keep the resident updated and this was in line with its complaints policy. It is noted however that the stage 2 response timeframe was extended beyond the 10 working days as outlined in its policy, albeit only by a further 2 working days.
Where complaint responses have been delayed, it is appropriate for landlords to acknowledge the inconvenience and time and trouble caused to a resident as a result, by way of redress. This can include an apology, an explanation for the delay and financial compensation. Although the landlord apologised for the delays in its responses, it failed to acknowledge that the stage 1 response had been poor or the impact of the delays on the resident. This was not appropriate,
Good record keeping is vital in order to maintain a record of a landlord’s actions. It is also important in instilling confidence in the landlord and in its management systems and information. Landlords should therefore take steps to ensure that its record keeping practices are adequate, including retaining and having access to repair logs and that care is taken to provide all necessary documentation requested by the Ombudsman for its investigations.
It is evident throughout this case that the landlord failed to keep records of communication that it had with its contractors (with none having been provided to this Service) and with the resident in respect of the works. As such it could not demonstrate that it had taken sufficient steps to respond to the resident or keep her fully informed. The Housing Ombudsman’s May 2023 Spotlight Report on knowledge and information management refers specifically to these types of incidences and the landlord is encouraged to consider the impact its knowledge and information management has on the quality of its housing services.
In summary, the landlord did not demonstrate sufficient knowledge and information management in order to keep a robust record of the progress of the works or its correspondence with contractors, nor did the landlord consider the resident’s individual circumstances when considering redress. Consequently this service finds maladministration.
An improvement in the landlord’s record-keeping and complaint handling would result in significant benefits for both it and its residents. It would enable accurate information to be shared across teams and with residents which would improve the landlord’s responses in being able to evidence actions it had taken. It would also help with investigations by this Service in improving our understanding of the situation at the time. An order has been made for the landlord to review and improve its knowledge and information management. To acknowledge the frustration and inconvenience caused to the resident by these failures, compensation of £250 has been ordered.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration in respect of the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about the length of time scaffolding had been up at the property.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration in respect of the landlord’s complaint handling.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

The landlord is ordered to take the following action within 4 weeks of this report and provide evidence of compliance to this Service:
1. Apologise to the resident for the failures identified in this case.
2. Pay a total of £1050 compensation to the resident made up as follows:
  1. £800 to acknowledge the frustration caused to the resident by the landlord’s failure in respect of its response to the resident’s concerns about the length of time scaffolding had been up at the property.
  2. £250 to acknowledge the frustration caused to the resident by the landlord’s knowledge and information management and complaint handling failures.
3. In accordance with paragraph 54(g) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord is ordered to carry out a senior management review of the resident’s case. It should provide a copy of the review to its senior leadership team and this Service within 8 weeks of the date of this report. The review should consider:
  1. The Impact of the length of time the scaffolding has been up at the block and the related works on other residents of the block and appropriate redress for how individual residents have been impacted by this.
  2. A review of its knowledge and information management. This is to focus on how it will ensure effective communication with its contractors and its processes for communicating the progress of major works with residents and ensuring reasons for delays are understood by its staff and shared with residents in a timely manner.
  3. How it will consider vulnerabilities and the individual circumstances of residents when responding to resident’s concerns.
  4. How its systems can be improved to enable it to respond to resident’s communications in a detailed and accurate manner.
  5. How it will ensure complaint responses are sufficient and in line with the Housing Ombudsman complaint handling code.
  6. Any staff training that may improve its future response to similar cases.