Tower Hamlets Homes (202304522)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202304522

Tower Hamlets Homes

11 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 handling of an obstruction to the resident’s parking bay.
The Ombudsman has also investigated the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

The resident has been a secure tenant of the landlord, an arms length management organisation (ALMO) since 2017.
In 2019 the resident entered into a license agreement with the landlord to have exclusive use of a parking bay near to his home, in exchange for a weekly charge.

Summary of events

On 9 December 2022, the resident reported that a large container had been placed in his parking bay. Six days later the landlord told the resident it was arranging for this to be removed and apologised for the inconvenience caused.
On 23 December 2022, the resident made a complaint to the landlord as the container was still in his parking bay. He asked for it to be removed immediately and for compensation for the stress this had caused.
In early January 2023, the resident told the landlord that the container was still in his bay. The landlord replied on 5 January 2023, that it had asked its contractor to urgently remove this. It apologised for the inconvenience caused and said it would not charge him for the period the container had been in his bay. The resident replied the same day that not charging him was insufficient as the situation had caused him unnecessary inconvenience. The following day, the container was removed.
On 19 January 2023, the landlord offered the resident £20 compensation for the impact of the situation. He declined this offer the following day and asked for his complaint to be escalated. The landlord confirmed it had escalated his complaint on 23 January 2023.
On 31 January 2023, the landlord provided its stage 1 response which said that the container had been put in the resident’s bay by mistake. When he reported this, the landlord contacted its contractor to get it removed, but this took longer than expected. It apologised for the inconvenience caused and offered £50 compensation for the impact of the situation. It had fed back learning to staff and its contractor regarding the matter.
The same day the resident asked to escalate his complaint to stage 2 as the compensation offered did not properly reflect the level of inconvenience he had suffered. Not being able to park in his bay meant there had been times when he had to park further away from his home. When he initially reported this to the landlord, it was very unhelpful and told him that he needed to contact its contractor and the parking enforcement company. If he had parked in the bay without a permit, he would have been fined £60 per day so he did not believe the landlord’s offer of compensation was fair.
Three days later the landlord offered the resident £100 compensation to settle the complaint without escalating to stage 2. The resident said he declined this offer and on 8 February 2023, the landlord acknowledged receipt of the stage 2 complaint and confirmed a full investigation would be carried out.
On 29 March 2023, the landlord provided its stage 2 response which apologised and acknowledged that it took too long to arrange for the container to be removed. It would provide feedback to staff about the lack of support given when he initially reported this issue. It concluded that the £50 compensation offered at stage 1 was a reasonable amount to address the impact of the situation. It reoffered this in addition to having the charges for the bay cancelled for the period that the resident was unable to use it.
The same day the resident asked the landlord how it could conclude the investigation without speaking to him and why the compensation offered in its final response was less than previously offered. On 5 May 2024, following a number of emails exchanged between the parties, the landlord replied that his queries had been dealt with as part of its final response and confirmed the escalation details for this Service.
The following day, the resident escalated his complaint to this Service and asked to be adequately compensated for this issue, as the landlord’s offers were insufficient.

Assessment and findings

Handling of an obstruction to the resident’s parking bay

As the resident has a license agreement to make use of the parking bay, the landlord’s contractor should not have placed the container in the bay. The landlord explained that this was a mistake and, while inconvenient for the resident, it is understandable that mistakes can happen.
When a landlord makes a mistake, it is important that it takes swift action to put things right. In this case, the landlord took action by contacting its contractor but did not adequately follow up to ensure that the container was removed in a timely manner. This meant that the resident had to contact the landlord on at least 2 more occasions, including raising a formal complaint, before the container was removed.
The landlord’s failure to follow up and ensure the container was removed resulted in the parking bay being obstructed for a period of 4 weeks. This included the Christmas period, which presented additional parking challenges, due to people being at home more and having additional visitors.
Considering the length of time this matter went on for and because the resident had to raise the issue on at least 3 occasions, the landlord’s handling of this matter amounts to maladministration. This situation adversely affected the resident, as he was inconvenienced by having to find alternative parking for this period, and he said this led to him having to park further away from his property when he returned home from work late at night.
The landlord has acknowledged that it took too long to get the container removed and recognised that this caused inconvenience for the resident. It apologised, offered compensation and identified learning, all of which are in line with the Ombudsman’s dispute resolution principles to be fair, put things right and learn from outcomes.
The resident has said that the compensation offered does not properly reflect the level of inconvenience caused. He has suggested the landlord should pay him £60 per day as this is what he would have been fined had he parked in the bay without a permit. Among other reasons, penalty charges for parking are in place as a deterrent and are set at high amounts, in order to be effective. A penalty charge amount is not comparable to the level of compensation required in this case as the purpose of compensation is to recognise the impact and acknowledge any adverse effect the resident suffered.
Considering the full circumstances of this matter and in consultation with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance, orders have been made below for the landlord to remove the parking charges from the resident’s account for the period 8 December 2022 to 6 January 2023, if not done so already; and pay the resident £200 compensation in recognition of the impact, which is inclusive of the £50 already offered.

Complaint handling

The landlord’s complaints policy sets out a 3 stage process, which includes an informal complaint stage, where it aims to respond within 5 working days. The Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code) encourages the early and local resolution of issues between landlords and residents and recognises that there may be times appropriate action can be agreed immediately. However, it is not appropriate for landlord’s to have extra named stages in its procedure, as this can cause unnecessary confusion for residents.
When the resident first complained in December 2022, the records indicate that the landlord treated this as an informal complaint; however, there is no record that it called the resident within 2 days, as is committed in its complaints policy.
The landlord provided written updates to the resident on 5 and 19 January 2023, which included offers of redress, but neither were clear that they were a formal response to his complaint. As these were provided 7 and 17 working days after the resident made his complaint, both were over the committed response time of 5 working days set out in its complaints policy, and were only provided after the resident made further contact to chase up the matter.
The landlord provided its stage 1 response in 8 working days, which was in line with the committed timeframe of 10 working days set out in its complaints policy. However, it provided the stage 2 response in 42 working days, which was more than double the committed timeframe of 20 working days set out in its complaints policy.
The landlord’s policy says that where a stage 2 complaint is complex, it may extend the timeframe by 10 working days. However, considering the nature of the complaint, this would not be considered complex and so it is not clear what caused the delay. Also, the landlord failed to provide any updates during the period of delay, which would be good complaint handling practise. The delay and poor communication amounts to maladministration and were frustrating for the resident.
When the resident asked to escalate his complaint to stage 2 in January 2023, the landlord offered him increased compensation not to progress this. This was inappropriate and bad practice in respect of the use of compensation, as this is not meant to be offered as a way to encourage residents not to pursue their complaints.
Complaints offer landlords an opportunity to put things right for residents and learn from its mistakes or errors, which can lead to wider improvements in its service delivery. Encouraging residents not to progress their complaints, can lead to residents not feeling heard and result in landlords missing opportunities to learn.
In this case, the landlord’s offer was dismissive of the resident’s concerns and amounts to maladministration. An order has been made below for the landlord to provide staff training on the use of compensation, including examples of good and bad practice, with specific reference to this case as an example of bad practice.
The landlord failed to acknowledge or offer redress for its complaint handling failures, in respect of the resident’s complaint. When the resident raised concerns about the landlord’s complaint handling, after he received the final response, the landlord did not provide answers to the specific concerns, which caused the resident to feel let down and to lose faith in the landlord and its processes.
Overall, there was maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling and orders have been made below for the landlord to apologise to the resident and pay him £200 compensation.
On 8 February 2024, the Ombudsman issued the statutory Complaint Handling Code. This Code sets out the standards landlords must meet when handling complaints in both policy and practice. The statutory Code applies from 1 April 2024.
The Ombudsman has a duty to monitor compliance with the Code. We will assess landlords using our Compliance Framework and take action where there is evidence that the standards set out in the Code are not being met.
In this investigation, we found failures in complaint handling. We have therefore made an order below the landlord to consider the findings highlighted in this investigation when reviewing its policies and practices against the statutory Code.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of:
1. An obstruction to the resident’s parking bay
2. The formal complaint.

Reasons

The landlord did not do enough to ensure the container was removed from the resident’s parking bay in a timely manner and he incurred time and trouble in pursuing the matter.
There were delays in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint, with no acknowledgement, apology or redress provided. The landlord offered the resident compensation not to progress his complaint, which was dismissive of his concerns and bad practise.

Orders

Within 4 weeks, the landlord is ordered to:
1. Remove the parking charges from the resident’s account for the period 8 December 2022 to 6 January 2023, if not done so already.
2. Pay the resident £400 compensation (£200 in recognition of the impact of its handling of an obstruction to his parking bay and £200 for its complaint handling).
3. Apologise to the resident for its complaint handling.
The landlord to provide evidence of compliance with the above orders to this Service, within 4 weeks.
Within 8 weeks, the landlord is ordered to provide staff training on the use of compensation, including examples of good and bad practice, with specific reference to the resident’s complaint as an example or bad practice.
The landlord to provide evidence of compliance with the above order to this Service, within 8 weeks.
Within 12 weeks, the landlord is ordered to complete a review, at senior management level, of its complaints policy and procedure. The outcome of this review to include:
1. An updated complaints policy and procedure that is compliant with the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code and the updated Housing Ombudsman Scheme, which came into force on 1 April 2024.
2. Removal of the ‘informal complaint’ stage from its procedure.
3. A completed self-assessment against the Code for the updated policy and procedure.
4. A plan for implementation, including staff training and publication of the updated policy and procedure, with timeframes for completion.
The landlord to provide evidence to this Service that the review has been carried out, including a copy of the updated policy, self-assessment and implementation plan within 12 weeks of the date of this report.