Sandwell Metropolitan Borough Council (202007918)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202007918

Sandwell Metropolitan Borough Council

26 February 2021

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 complaintThe complaint is about the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports about:
1. The landlord’s handling of repairs to the gutter, roofline and tiles at the property;
2. The landlord’s handling of asbestos;
3. Damage to the windowsills;
4. Delays with erection and removal of the scaffolding;
5. Concerns about the conduct of contractors and not wearing identification; and
6. The landlord’s complaints handling.

Background and summary of events

Background

The resident is a secure tenant of a 2-bedroom semi-detached house and is subject to the terms and conditions contained in the tenancy agreement. The landlord is the local authority.
The landlord operates a two-stage complaints policy. The policy requires that complainants are kept updated throughout the complaints process. If the resident makes a complaint at the first stage, the landlord will acknowledge the complaint within three working days and formally respond within 10 working days. If the resident is dissatisfied with the response, the resident can request a formal review of the decision and this should be acknowledged within three working days and a response should be provided within 10 working days, however, for complex cases this can be extended to 20 working days.
The landlord’s repairs policy outlines the response times for different types of repairs, it aims to attend to ‘urgent repairs within 3 days, small non urgent repairs within 25 days and large non urgent repairs within 30 working days’. It highlights that on occasions ‘work of a specialist nature such as asbestos removal, damp proof course injection and PVCU window replacement will take a little longer than 30 days’.
The landlord has an obligation under the tenancy agreement to ‘keep in repair the structure and exterior of your home including drains, gutters and outside pipes’.
The landlord’s asbestos policy states that a licensed contractor must be used to remove and dispose of asbestos. If products made from asbestos cement are in good condition, the policy says that it is often best left alone or if damaged, it may be possible to repair by sealing or enclosing the material.
The landlord’s repairs policy highlights that after the second instruction, if it has not completed the work by the completion date, the amount of compensation will be £10.00, plus £2.00 a day for every day the repair remains outstanding, up to a maximum of £50.00.

Summary of events

On 28 June 2019, the resident made a complaint regarding the guttering at the property, an operative attended and it was discovered that more substantial works would need to be carried out and this required scaffolding to be erected. The landlord’s contractor was not able to address the issue until 17 February 2020 due to a scaffold shortage.
On 18 February 2020, the landlord’s contractor reported that materials underneath the fascia were rotten. The landlord agreed to replace the rotten materials, including providing a new gutter, fascia and soffits.
On 9 March 2020, the landlord attended the property to inspect works performed by the contractor. It found that the works were of a poor standard and arranged for the contractor’s manager to attend the following day for a site meeting. File notes show that at the meeting the contractor informed the landlord that it had used a subcontractor to carry out the roofline works and did not have the capacity to fix the issues due to suspected asbestos in the roof of the property.
On 12 March 2020, the landlord contacted the resident and stated that due to failures in performing the repairs the landlord would be using another contractor that specialises in the removal of asbestos and any remedial work that the removal may incur. It stated that the new contractor would attend the property on 20 March 2020 to start the works.
On 16 March 2020, the resident informed the landlord that its operatives had scratched the windowsills on the outside of the property.
On 17 March 2020, the landlord contacted the resident and informed her that in light of the current Covid-19 outbreak, non-essential appointments were to be put on hold until it was told otherwise and would therefore not be able to make any appointments for the foreseeable future. It stated that the contractors would still attend the property on the 20th March 2020.
On 20 March 2020, the landlord contacted the resident and advised that the contractors stated that there was no asbestos debris or dust on the roof and it was old moss and general debris accumulated over time. It also confirmed that the contractors had encapsulated any damage to the outhouse roof and it was safe. The landlord assured the resident that once the repairs were complete and the scaffold down, it would arrange to inspect the works. The landlord also stated that once the works to the roofline and tiles were complete, it would get a specialist repair company to attend to repair the damage to the windowsills.
On 24 March 2020, the landlord contacted the resident and updated her regarding the repairs at the property. It stated that the contractors for the tile replacement and windowsill repairs were on lockdown amid the current Covid-19 crisis to protect its workforce and its customers so both of these jobs were on hold until the lockdown was over. It had been in touch with the contractors to remove the scaffold and made a list of outstanding repairs issues to the roof and windowsills. It informed the resident that it would inspect the outhouse roof when services return to normal and would contact her with dates for works to commence.
On 24 March 2020, the resident complaint to the landlord that the contractors had not replaced the cover for the extractor fan in the bathroom. The landlord contacted the contractor the same day and it stated that it would attend to the extractor fan as soon as it could, government regulations allowing.
On 25 March 2020, the resident made an initial stage one complaint to the landlord. The resident raised the following issues:
1. She had scaffolding in her yard for over 6 weeks and it restricted her use of the garden and using the full amenities of the property.
2. That there were tiles on each corner of the roof that were not secure.
3. That there was damage to the bathroom extractor fan cover.
The landlord responded to the stage one complaint on the same day and stated that it was unsure how long the scaffolding would be up at the property due to the current nationwide lockdown. It highlighted that all work at the property had come to a standstill as the specialist roofing contractor was currently not attending any works, it would attempt to set a date with the resident as soon as practical. The landlord stated that the tiles on the roof were secure and the issue was that the cement that held them down was messy and it would like the contractors to make it neater.
On 21 April 2020, the resident informed the landlord that it was unhappy with the decision at stage one and would like the complaint referred to a stage two complaint.
On 14 May 2020, the landlord provided the resident with its stage two final response. The resident raised a number of complaints relating to previous issues that have already completed the landlord’s complaints process. It highlighted that the resident continuing to raise these issues outside of the prescribed process would not enable both parties to reach a conclusion. The landlord addressed the following issues:
1. Guttering – The landlord acknowledged that the works were not performed to a satisfactory standard and there were significant delays due to the change of contractor and further works discovered. The landlord ensured that the works would be completed by the contractor in due course.
2. Asbestos – During the guttering works asbestos containing materials were identified and the landlord appointed specialist contractors to deal with the issue. The resident raised concerns regarding loose materials and contamination from dust. The specialist contractor returned to site to clean up any areas that may have been infected and to survey the outhouse roof for suspected damage. Reports state that the only damage identified on the roof was to the outer edge and this was sealed appropriately. It stated that the issues were dealt with appropriately in line with its asbestos policy and guidance and Health & Safety Executive guidance on this matter.
3. Scaffold- The scaffolding would be removed on the completion of guttering work and any work to the windowsills were in the hands of its appointed contractors.
4. Windows at the property – These works had been forwarded to its specialist window contractor.

The landlord acknowledged the effect that these works had on the resident especially the scaffold at the property. It highlighted the extensive delays following the government’s decision to implement a nationwide lockdown.

On 15 May 2020, the landlord advised the resident that it would be meeting with the contractor on 18 May 2020 to survey the works to the roofline.
On the 21 May 2020, the resident made a complaint about the quality of repairs, the landlord advised the resident that the contractors would be reattending to the roofline repairs on 26 May 2020.
On 10 June 2020, the landlord informed the resident that it would be attending the property with the contractor to finalise the issues that were holding back completion of the roofline works. It advised that once the work was done it would inspect the works and clean and replenish the window frames. The landlord highlighted the following works to be completed by the contractor:
1. Redo the fascia at the rear where it joins to the neighbour’s property.
2. Re-align the corner gutter to the rear corner, repaint the lintel over the small side window, fit an extra clip to the side elevation near to the front corner.
3. Re-fix the telephone cable that runs across the front of the property and seal in the gaps where the fascia joins onto the neighbour’s fascia at the front.
On the 29 June 2020, the landlord attended to the windowsills around the property using UPVC restoring solution to attend to the alleged scratches on the external windowsills and cleaned the windows around the property. The landlord advised that it ‘left the windowsills with no marks on them whatsoever’.
On 30 June 2020, the scaffolding was removed from the resident’s property. The resident highlighted that building work debris remained on the outhouse annexed roof which would serve to retain rainfall and pose a threat to the already vulnerable and dangerous roof and asked the landlord for it to be removed. The resident raised that she believed the works on the roof were substandard.
On 8 July 2020 the landlord responded and stated that it inspected the roof works at various times over the previous months and was quite satisfied that the roof was sound and there were no loose tiles and was done to an appropriate standard.
On 8 July 2020, the resident made a complaint to the landlord regarding the sub-contractor’s conduct and that the contractors do not having DSB checks. The resident highlighted that workmen were arguing between themselves at her home and being extremely rude and unprofessional towards her and are not wearing identification.
On the 13 July 2020, the landlord issued its stage one complaint response in regard to the conduct of the workman at the property and DBS checking of employees. The landlord apologised for the conduct of the contractors and acknowledged that contractors should adhere to the Council’s policies whilst working on its behalf. It stated that it had been reported to the contract managers who would be speaking to the sub-contractors mentioned and dealt with directly. In regard to the landlord undertaking DBS checks on it contractors, it stated that it was not a requirement under the current legislation.
This service was not provided with a request from the resident to escalate the complaint to stage two of the landlord’s complaint process.
On 17 August 2020, the landlord issued the resident with its stage two complaint response responding to the complaint that scaffolders were attending without prior notice, without ID and without seeking approval to work on a Sunday. The response confirmed that contractors are required to make appointments with customers, as well a carry ID at all times. It apologised that this was not undertaken by the contractors carrying out the works at the property. It reaffirmed with the manager the need for its contractors to ensure appointments were arranged and ID carried. It also stated that it expects its contractors to carry out works between Monday and Friday.
On 28 August 2020, the resident was issued with a restriction of contact by the landlord due to unreasonable and unreasonably persistent complaints.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s handling of repairs to the gutter, roofline and tiles at the property.

The resident raised issues of damage to the guttering, roofline and tiles at the property. The landlord has an obligation under the tenancy agreement to make the appropriate repairs. It is clear from the evidence provided and the landlord’s own admissions that there was a significant delay in completing these repairs at the property.
The landlord’s repair logs show that on 28 June 2019 an order was raised to fix the guttering at the resident’s property. These works were delayed as the contractor discovered further issues to the roofline and tiles that required the use of scaffolding. The evidence provided demonstrates that there was an extensive delay until 17 February 2020 in getting the scaffolding erected due to a ‘shortage’. The original contractors completed the works and it was inspected by the landlord and discovered that the works were of a poor standard. The landlord took a resolution focused approach and hired a specialist contractor to complete the remedial works and deal with suspected asbestos materials. The actions of the landlord were appropriate in order to complete the repairs at the property in line with its repairs and asbestos policy.
Both parties acknowledged that there were further delays to the completion of the works due to the nationwide lockdown and the contractor involved ceasing all works. The landlord appropriately conveyed this information to the resident and advised that the works would be completed ‘as soon as possible’. The landlord’s response was acceptable in the circumstances and in line with government guidelines. Repair logs show that works commenced again at the property in May 2020 and the resident raised issues regarding the quality of the work. The landlord attended to inspect the completed works with the contractor on 10 June 2020 and highlighted cosmetic works to be completed. The works were completed and inspected by the landlord and the scaffolding was deconstructed on 30 June 2020. This part of the repair was acceptable and in line with the landlord’s responsibilities under its repairs policy and within the 30-day time period to attended to non-urgent repairs.
However, during the initial repair with the first contractor the landlord failed in its obligation to fix the issue within the 30-day time period as highlighted in its repairs policy. The landlord appropriately apologised for the substandard of work of the first contractor, however, failed to offer the resident any compensation for the delay in repairs. Both parties acknowledged that during the repairs the country went into a nationwide lockdown that caused further significant delays. The landlord appropriately kept the resident notified about the progress of the repairs and took a proactive approach to inspect the works to ensure that they were up to standard. Under the repairs policy the landlord can offer a resident £10 compensation plus £2 per day for every day the repairs are outstanding up to £50. The works that needed to be performed were minor in nature and did not have a major adverse effect on the resident except in regard to the scaffolding that will be addressed below. Therefore, the compensation amount of £60 is sufficient to put right the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident.

The landlord’s handling of asbestos

The landlord’s repair logs show that it became aware of the issue of asbestos on the 9 March 2020. The current contractors were unable to complete the further works to the property, so the landlord took appropriate action by hiring a specialist contractor for the removal of asbestos and to complete any remedial works in line with its asbestos policy. The landlord had the contractor attend the property and it was found that there was no asbestos debris or dust on the roof, and it was old moss and general debris accumulated over time. It was appropriate for the landlord to rely on its specialist contractors to assess the situation and complete the appropriate works to the outhouse roof to ensure that it was safe. Accordingly, the landlord took appropriate steps to deal with the asbestos issue in line with its asbestos policy and responded accordingly to keep all parties safe and informed.

Damage to the windowsills

The resident first raised the issues of scratches to the windowsill on the 16 March 2020. The landlord responded on 14 May 2020 and stated that it would have its window specialists attend to this issue after the repairs are complete in case of further damage. The landlord’s repairs log shows that on 29 June 2020, the landlord fixed the windowsills around the property with a UPVC restoring solution to attend to the alleged scratches on the external windowsills and cleaned the windows around the property. The landlord acted in accordance with its repairs obligations and its timescale provided and any perceived delay had no adverse effect on the resident.

Delays with erecting and removing the scaffolding

The landlord’s repair log shows that on 28 June 2019, the contractor highlighted the need for scaffolding at the property in order to complete the required repairs. There was an 7-month delay in the erection of the scaffolding except to say that there was a ‘scaffold shortage’. It is acknowledged that repairs requiring scaffolding can talk longer than the 30-days highlighted under its repairs policy, however, the landlord failed to take a resolution focused approach and seek other contractors to complete the work. The landlord’s failure to manage the erection of the scaffolding in a timely manner caused significant delays to the repairs at the property. The landlord failed to offer the resident any compensation for the delay which would have been approprate in this situation.
In regard to the removal of the scaffolding, it is accepted by both parties that there were delays to the completion of the works due to the nationwide lockdown and the contractor involved ceasing all works. The landlord appropriately conveyed this information to the resident and advised that as soon as works are completed at the property the scaffolding would be removed. The repair logs show that within a week of the works being completed the scaffolding was removed at the property. The landlord’s actions were acceptable in the circumstances and the scaffolding was removed as soon as practical after the repairs had been completed.

Concerns about the conduct of contractors and not wearing identification.

The resident raised that a member of the landlord’s contractors were ‘arguing between themselves and being extremely rude and unprofessional towards her and are not wearing identification’. The landlord apologised for the conduct of the contractors and acknowledged that contractors should adhere to the Council’s policies whilst working on its behalf. The landlord appropriately reported the contractors to the staff manager about their conduct who stated it would ‘deal with it directly’. The landlord appropriately reaffirmed with the manager the need for its contractors to ensure appointments are arranged and ID is carried. This was communicated to the resident in the landlord’s stage one and two responses in line with its complaints policy. Considering the limited evidence provided, the landlord took reasonable steps to deal with the reports of inappropriate conduct.

The landlord’s complaints handling.

The landlord operates a two stage complaints policy; If the resident makes a complaint at the first stage, the landlord should acknowledge within three working days and formally respond within 10 working days. If the resident is dissatisfied with the response at the first stage, they can request a formal review of their complaint. The documentation provided shows the initial formal complaint from the resident was made on 25 March 2020. The landlord provided a formal response on the same day in line with its complaints policy. The resident was unhappy with the decision and asked for it to be escalated to stage two on the 24 April 2020. The landlord provided its formal stage two response on the 14 May 2020, within the 20-working day period allowed for complex cases. At both stage one and stage two of the process it would appear that the landlord had fully complied with its complaints policy.
The resident made a second stage one complaint that is addressed in this investigation on 8 July 2020 and the landlord provided a formal stage one response on 13 July 2020. This service does not have a copy of the request for escalation to stage two of the landlord’s complaints process from the resident. The landlord issued the resident with a stage two final response on the 17 August 2020. This represents a 21-working day response time from when it provided its stage one response therefore it is within the time if the resident had requested a review any time from when it provided its stage one response. Therefore, the landlord has fully complied with its complaints policy.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was service failure in respect of:
1. The landlord’s handling of repairs to the gutter, roofline and tiles at the property.
2. Delays with erecting and removal of the scaffolding.
In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was no maladministration in respect of:
1. The landlord’s handling of asbestos.
2. Damage to the windowsills.
3. Concerns about the conduct of contractors and not wearing identification.
4. The landlord’s complaints handling

Reasons

The landlord had an obligation to repair the guttering, roofline and tiles at the property. The landlord failed in its obligation to fix the issue within the 30-day time period as highlighted in its repairs policy and did not provide the resident with appropriate compensation to put right the distress and inconvenience caused to them.
There was a significant 7-month delay in the landlord’s contractors installing the scaffolding at the property. The landlord failed to take a resolution focused approach and caused significant delays to the repairs at the property and caused the resident distress and inconvenience.
The landlord took a resolution focused approach and hired a specialist contractor for the removal of asbestos and to complete any remedial works in line with its asbestos policy. It ensured contractors attended the property to inspect potential damage and potential risks.
The landlord apologised for the conduct of the contractors and acknowledged that contractors should adhere to the Council’s policies whilst working on its behalf. The landlord reported the contractors to the staff manager about their conduct and reaffirmed with the manager the need for ID to be carried. This was communicated appropriately to the resident at both stages of its complaints response.
The complaints handling by the landlord was in line with its policies at both stage one and two of the complaints process for both complaints addressed in this investigation report.

Orders

The Ombudsman orders the landlord to pay the resident compensation of £1600 comprising:
1. £60 in respect to the delayed approach in addressing repairs to the gutter, roofline and tiles at the property.
2. £100 in respect of the distress and inconvenience experienced by the delay in erecting the scaffolding.
The landlord is to make this payment to the resident within four weeks and to update this service when payment has made.