Applications are open to join the next Housing Ombudsman Resident Panel – find out more Housing Ombudsman Resident Panel.

Sandwell Metropolitan Borough Council (201912989)

Back to Top

 

 

 

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 201912989

Sandwell Metropolitan Borough Council

23 December 2020


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 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

  1. The complaint concerns the landlord’s responses to the resident’s enquiries about the refurbishment of his building.

Background and summary of events

  1. The resident is a secure tenant of the landlord, which is a local authority. The property is a flat in a communal building.
  2. The resident experienced ongoing issues of water ingress into the building. On 19 September 2018 he wrote to the landlord and requested information on its plans to refurbish the block. He said that water ingress had been an issue since 2016 and that it had caused damp in the property.
  3. The landlord wrote to the resident on 25 October 2018 and informed him that there was a proposed programme for external work, but it was unable to provide any further information at that time. It further informed him that it had booked an appointment for 8 November to inspect the property.
  4. The resident wrote to the landlord’s CEO on 8 November 2018 asking to raise a complaint about the issue. He said he was dissatisfied with how long the refurbishment matter had been outstanding. The landlord provided this Service with internal emails from 8 November relating to opening a formal complaint. However, it has not provided any evidence showing a complaint was opened or that a response was sent to the resident.
  5. The resident wrote to the landlord’s CEO again on 22 November 2019. He explained his unhappiness with the lack of updates about the status of the building, and the condition of his property. He asked whether the landlord was going to redevelop or demolish the building.
  6. The landlord replied on 26 November 2019. It informed him that his email had been passed on it its home improvements department and advised him on how to report repairs.
  7. The resident replied on 28 November 2019. He said he had already reported the repairs, that the property had been inspected “on more than one occasion”, and that he had been given conflicting information on the landlord’s plans for the building. The resident asked for a final response from the landlord to allow him to take his complaint to this Service.
  8. Internal landlord emails dated 2 December 2019 discussed drafting a complaint response to the resident. The landlord’s officers suggested informing the resident of their general and possible plans for the building. However, there is no evidence that a complaint response was sent to the resident, or that he was informed of the landlord’s proposed plans for the building and his property.
  9. On 9 January 2020 the resident wrote to this Service and explained his dissatisfaction with how the landlord had handled his complaint. This Service wrote to the landlord on 21 January and passed on the resident’s concerns. The landlord replied on the same day, confirming that a formal complaint had now been opened.
  10. On 12 February 2020 the landlord visited the resident at his property to discuss his concerns. Following the meeting, the landlord sent a stage one complaint response.
  11. The landlord informed the resident that a feasibility study would be undertaken regarding the refurbishment of all properties in the building. It said it would keep the resident updated on the progress of the study. The landlord apologised for the poor service it had previously provided to the resident. and explained the steps to request an escalation to stage two, if he remained dissatisfied.
  12. On 18, 20 and 26 June 2020 the resident’s partner wrote to the landlord to enquire on the status of the stage two complaint.
  13. The landlord sent a stage two complaint response to the resident on 15 July 2020. It apologised to the resident for the delay in providing an update and explained that this was due to the COVID-19 pandemic. The landlord said it was in the process of producing a specification for the improvement of the façade of the building in order to stop water penetration. It said it did not have a timescale for this work but that it would keep him updated. It confirmed that the resident had exhausted its internal complaint process and explained the steps to bring his case to this Service should he remain dissatisfied.
  14. Following the completion of the complaint process, a survey of the building was undertaken on 21 and 22 September 2020. In October 2020 the resident was decanted from the property to allow an invasive survey to be undertaken. The landlord intends to make a decision whether to repair the property or rehouse the resident permanently upon receipt of the invasive survey.

Assessment and findings

  1. In providing evidence for this case, the landlord has sent internal email correspondence discussing the status of the building as well as surveys and reports from 2009 up until September 2020.
  2. In his correspondence with the landlord, the resident repeated his frustration at the lack of information provided, and that the information he had received appeared to be contradictory.
  3. It stands to reason that decisions about the refurbishment and/or redevelopment of an entire building would potentially be complicated, time-consuming, and possibly commercially sensitive. It would also be understandable if the landlord’s decisions on how to proceed with refurbishment changed over the years due to a range of different factors. It is not within the scope of this investigation to decide what information the landlord should have provided to the resident in response to his requests. If the landlord found itself in a situation whereby it could not provide meaningful details, for whatever reason, it should have explained this to the resident. The evidence available for this investigation shows that the landlord did that in response to the resident’s September 2018 enquiry, but not to his enquiry and complaint in November the same year, or his subsequent enquiry in November 2019. Those omissions were service failures.
  4. The landlord’s complaint policy states that when a complainant contacts it, a stage one response will be sent within ten working days. If the complainant remains dissatisfied, they can request an escalation of the complaint to stage two, where a review will be undertaken by a senior manager and a response sent out within 20 working days.
  5. The resident first attempted to raise complaint with the landlord in September 2018, with no apparent response. The resident wrote to the landlord’s CEO in November 2019 and again requested to raise a complaint. On both occasions, internal landlord emails discussed opening a formal complaint, yet this did not occur, and a complaint was not opened until the intervention of this Service in January 2020.
  6. Upon receipt of the stage one complaint response on 12 February 2020, the resident requested an escalation to stage two. It is not clear when this request was sent to the landlord as this email has not been provided. The resident’s partner called this Service on 20 June as the escalation request had not been acknowledged. The landlord then sent the stage two complaint response on 15 July 2020. In the response, the landlord apologised for the delay in responding and explained that this was due to the landlord running a reduced service because of the COVID-19 pandemic.
  7. Overall, it is clear that the landlord did not follow its complaints policy in this case. While the landlord’s complaint responses acknowledged and apologised for its poor service in responding to the resident’s enquiries, they did not address the significant delays dealing with his complaints on the matter. Because of that, the landlord’s overall handling was poor.

Determination (decision)

  1. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was service failure by the landlord in respect of the complaint.

Orders

  1. In light of the service failure and reasons set out above, the landlord is ordered to pay to the resident £250. This payment should be made within four weeks of the date of this report. The landlord should update this Service when payment has been made.