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

London Borough of Barking and Dagenham (202210257)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202210257

London Borough of Barking and Dagenham

17 August 2023


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 is about:
    1. The landlord’s handling of the replacement of the resident’s windows.
    2. The landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

  1. The resident is a tenant of the landlord of a house. She has a representative in this case, who is also referred to as ‘the resident’ in this report.
  2. The landlord’s records state that, after receiving undated reports from the resident that her living room and bedroom windows were in need of repair, it raised an order for these on 10 February 2021. It then attended the property on 22 February 2021 and inspected the windows. The landlord found that the living room window was not functioning as a fire exit, and so needed to be replaced. It also found that the resident’s windows in the hall, bedroom and toilet needed to be replaced, as they were old and single glazed.
  3. The resident subsequently chased an update on the window works on 25 March 2021. However, the landlord explained that, due to the Covid-19 pandemic and tier 4 lockdown, it was not undertaking any major works. The resident chased her window works again on 4 May 2021, and then made a stage 1 complaint on 9 June 2021. She complained that the works were delayed, and that she was having to continually chase the landlord for an update, after it had inspected her windows and approved their replacement within “a few weeks”. As an outcome, the resident wanted a date for the start of the works.
  4. After explaining on 25 June 2021 that its stage 1 complaint response had been delayed and was now due by 2 July 2021, the landlord responded to the complaint on 29 June 2021. It apologised for the delay and inconvenience, and it assured the resident that it had asked for the window replacement works to be reviewed and authorised, and for these to be completed without further delay. The landlord therefore agreed to contact her within 10 working days to confirm the appointment date for the works.
  5. The landlord subsequently attended the property again on 2 July 2021, and it measured just the living room window for replacement. The resident then contacted it on the same day, enquiring when the other 3 windows would be replaced, as it had previously told her that they would be. The landlord stated in response that only the living room window had been authorised to be replaced, as only this was necessary because the other windows were old but working, and so she asked to escalate her complaint on the same day as its response on 13 July 2021. This was due to its refusal to replace the other 3 windows.
  6. The landlord nevertheless declined, on an unspecified date, to escalate the resident’s complaint, as it was currently discussing with its asset team what the best outcome would be for the additional window replacements. It said that it could not escalate the complaint until a decision was made on the remaining windows, and so it asked her to wait for a further update on these from it.
  7. The landlord replaced the resident’s living room window on 9 August 2021. However, she continued to chase it for an update on the replacement of her remaining 3 windows throughout 2021. The resident then complained to the landlord about this again on 27 October 2021, but she did not receive a formal response from it. Its asset team subsequently put the property forward to be considered for planned works to replace the single with double glazed windows there in its external works programme for the next year on 18 November 2021.
  8. However, the landlord did not inform the resident of this, who continued to chase it for an update on 6 January, 22 February and 8 March 2022. It also recorded that, on 22 February 2022, she had informed it that a storm had made the condition of the property’s windows worse, and that she was concerned that these were not secured, but that it only requested that she be updated on their replacement after it double checked its glazier’s note.
  9. The resident then escalated her complaint again on 7 April 2022. She was dissatisfied that she had not been updated on the replacement of the remaining windows, and stated that she had complained several times to get the works resolved. The landlord subsequently discussed this internally on 21 June 2022, but it noted that it was still waiting for confirmation from its asset management team as to whether and when the property’s windows would be included for replacement in its 2022-23 external works programme, as its repairs team would not replace these.
  10. After the resident again chased the landlord for an update on 10 August 2022 and subsequently requested the intervention of the Ombudsman, we contacted it on 18 August 2022 to ask it to respond to her complaint, and it then sent her its final stage complaint response on 1 September 2022. It explained that only the living room window had not been functioning and so required immediate replacement. The landlord stated that, as the other windows were old and single glazed but functioning, it had added them to its planned works to be considered for replacement in 2022-23, subject to survey.
  11. However, the landlord acknowledged and apologised that it had previously failed to communicate this to the resident, obtain a surveyor’s report, or establish whether the property was on its improvements programme, when it reviewed her complaint before closing this in June 2021. It accepted that it had only started to make enquiries to determine if her property was on a future major works programme in late-June 2022, which it was unable to confirm the exact date of, but that it should have told her what action would be taken much earlier. The landlord therefore offered the resident £100 compensation for her confusion, uncertainty and time spent chasing it, and it stated that she would be contacted when it confirmed the date of the survey for the window replacement works.
  12. In her subsequent complaint to the Ombudsman, the resident continued to be dissatisfied with how the landlord handled her window replacement, and the subsequent delays. She wanted her window replacement works to be completed in a timely manner.
  13. The landlord then informed the Ombudsman that it acknowledged that its repairs team had failed to attend the resident’s report of 22 February 2022 that a storm had left her windows unsecured. It therefore said that this, and its delay in replacing her living room window, meant that it seemed reasonable for it to increase its compensation offer to her by a further £100. The landlord also agreed to monitor similar requests in the future, and ensure that residents were updated in a timely manner if works were not imminent, as well as that their calls were returned. It additionally confirmed that the resident’s property was surveyed in September 2022, and added to its capital programme for works to start on her estate in 2023, which it therefore did not consider to have been delayed.

Assessment

The landlord’s handling of the replacement of the resident’s windows

  1. The resident’s tenancy agreement states that the landlord is responsible for maintaining the structure and outside of the resident’s property. The landlord’s website states that it will repair outside windows that are not secure within 1 working day, and that it will repair window frames within 20 working days. In general, larger scale major works typically require more planning, and would not be completed within the same timescales. This is also the same for planned investment or cyclical works, which typically take place as a series of repairs for multiple properties.
  2. The landlord responded to reports of the need for repairs to the resident’s windows by raising an order on 10 February 2021. It then acted reasonably by attending these within its website’s repair timescale of 20 working days for window frames on 22 February 2021 and inspecting the windows. The landlord concluded that the living room window needed to be replaced as a repair as this no longer functioned. However, it found that 3 other windows were old, and only single glazed, and so these would instead need to be replaced at a later date as part of its planned works.
  3. The landlord subsequently attended the resident’s property again on 9 August 2021 and replaced the living room window. This was nearly 6 months after it had first identified that the window needed to be replaced, and was 95 working days later than its website’s above repair timescale. The landlord has explained to the Ombudsman that this occurred during the Covid-19 pandemic, where it was placed in a tier 4 lockdown. This disrupted its services, as it could not provide any major works during this time, and it suffered a backlog of works after the lockdown was lifted, with the living room window also requiring a replacement that took longer to be ordered and manufactured, rather than a repair.
  4. The Covid-19 pandemic was not something that the landlord could control, and it would not have been responsible for some delays during this time, which may have also affected the ordering, manufacture and fitting of the resident’s replacement living room window. However, despite being unable to undertake works, in line with general good customer service standards, it would still have been expected to communicate effectively with her, managing both the works and her expectations.
  5. In response to the resident chasing for an update, the landlord explained on 25 March 2021 that her repair was going to be delayed due to a suspension of some of its services. After this, it nevertheless did not update her again, so that she was then required to chase it for a response on 4 May and 9 June 2021. The landlord eventually responded and confirmed that it had re-raised the window replacement works in its stage 1 complaint response on 29 June 2021, after the resident had submitted a complaint on the latter date. This was not appropriate, as it should have continued to keep in regular contact with her, and manage her expectations about the timescale and extent of the works.
  6. The landlord also explained to the Ombudsman that, during the survey on 22 February 2021, it identified that, in addition to the more immediate living room window replacement, 3 further windows would require replacing during its planned works scheme. This was reasonable at that time, as it had assessed the windows and found that the remaining 3 windows were safe and functioning, but would require improvement at a later date to maintain the standard of the property. Undertaking large schemes of planned works are a more economic choice for improvements, which are required as a long-term investment rather than an immediate repair.
  7. However, the landlord acknowledged that it did not explain when the works to replace the remaining 3 windows would be completed to the resident, who initially understood that these would be replaced at the same time as the living room window, until it declined to do so on 13 July 2021. Additionally, although it was reasonable for it to have concluded that the remaining window replacements would be undertaken as part of its planned works, it did not put her property forward to be considered for this until 18 November 2021, when the works would be arranged for the next financial year 2022-23. This was almost 9 months after the landlord’s survey had identified that the remaining windows should be replaced on 22 February 2021.
  8. Once again, the landlord would be expected to have a legitimate reason for the delay in putting forward the resident’s remaining window replacements until the following financial year to be arranged for the financial year after that, and to have continued to have communicated effectively with her about this. In this case, however, it did not explain to her that the further works would be classed as planned works until 13 July 2022, after nearly 5 months of her chasing it for all the windows to be replaced. The landlord also did not continue to manage the works, and failed to put the windows forward to be considered for the cyclical scheme for almost another 4 months.
  9. Once the landlord had put forward the remaining window replacements to be considered, it again failed to communicate this with the resident, leaving her to continue to chase it for an update on 6 January, 22 February, 8 March, 7 April and 10 and 18 August 2022, including via the Ombudsman on the latter occasion. However, it did not update her on this until 1 September 2022. This was not appropriate, as there was no need for the resident to spend her time and energy in constantly chasing the landlord for a more immediate window replacement that was instead being considered for future works. It has also not been able to explain the delay between its updates to her of over 13 months, and therefore this was a failing on its part in the circumstances. 
  10. The resident also reported on 22 February 2022 that a storm had worsened the windows’ condition, and that she was concerned that these were not secured. The landlord would be expected to re-attend and re-inspect the windows as, under her tenancy agreement, it is obliged to maintain the structure and outside of the property, and its website requires it to repair outside windows that are not secure within 1 working day. It nevertheless confirmed to the Ombudsman that it did not respond to the resident’s reports of further damage to these, nor did it return to re–inspect the windows, but it instead only requested that she be updated on their replacement after it double checked its glazier’s note. This is not in line with its obligations, and was a further failing on its part.
  11. In line with the Ombudsman’s complaint handling code (the code), the landlord is expected to identify any errors in its provision of service, acknowledge this to the resident, and explain why they occurred. It should then try to put things right. The landlord acted reasonably in its initial stage 1 complaint response in July 2021, as it acknowledged that there had been a delay to the resident’s window replacement, and apologised. It assured her that the works to the windows would be actioned without further delay, and it agreed to contact her within 10 working days to confirm the appointment date. However, the landlord did not explain that the delays had been due to the Covid-19 pandemic, or that only the living room window would be replaced at that time, failing to manage the resident’s expectations.
  12. In its final stage complaint response in September 2022, the landlord acted appropriately by explaining why the living room and other window replacements had been classed as different types of immediate and major works, and why they would subsequently be replaced at different times. It also acknowledged that its communication had been poor, and it recognised that it should have ensured that the windows were placed on the planned works list at an earlier date. The landlord explained that the resident’s works had now been placed on the cyclical works list, and would be replaced in 2022-23, subject to survey. It additionally assured her that it would contact her when it had a date for the survey.
  13. The landlord therefore apologised to the resident, and offered her £100 compensation for its poor communication, and the inconvenience that this had caused her, from the resulting confusion, uncertainty and time spent chasing it. It did not, however, identify its failure to re-attend the property after she had reported that the windows’ condition had worsened, and that these might not be secured, in February 2022.
  14. The landlord has subsequently stated to the Ombudsman that it would like to offer a further £100 compensation to the resident, in acknowledgment of its above failure to attend the property, and to re-assess the windows after she had reported that their condition had worsened. It also agreed to monitor similar requests to hers in the future, and ensure that residents were updated in a timely manner if works were not imminent, as well as that their calls were returned. While this is more appropriate, it should have used its final stage complaint response to identify these errors, and to have offered proportionate redress to fully put things right at that point, instead of only partly doing so after she complained to us and we requested further information from it.
  15. Therefore, while it was appropriate for the landlord to have offered compensation to the resident to try and put right its delays, lack of communication and failed attendance when handling her window replacements, the total amount it offered her of £200 does not fully recognise the full impact of its errors in this case. It is instead ordered below by the Ombudsman that the landlord pay her this, if it has not done so already, plus further compensation of another £200.
  16. This is in line with our remedies guidance, which recommends that up to £600 be awarded for failures which adversely affected the resident, where the landlord’s offer was not proportionate to the failings identified by our investigation. It has also been ordered below to contact her to confirm its schedule of works with her for the replacement of her remaining windows, if it has not done so already.

The landlord’s complaint handling

  1. The landlord’s policy for corporate complaints states that the landlord will respond to a stage 1 complaint within 10 working days. If the resident remains dissatisfied with the landlord’s response, they can escalate their complaint to the final stage of the complaints procedure. It will then respond within 30 working days, although it is required to send a progress report if it cannot meet this target, and it is permitted to decide that it is not appropriate to review the complaint further in some circumstances, being required to issue a response with the reasons why if so. It is noted that the landlord’s final stage response timeframe exceeds the 20 working days set out in the code.
  2. The resident first complained at stage 1 on 9 June 2021, but the landlord was not able to respond within its policy for corporate complaints’ 10-working-day timescale, and so it acted reasonably by sending her a holding letter on 25 June 2021 giving a new date for its response by 2 July 2021. It then sent its stage 1 response within the new timeframe on 29 June 2021. However, the resident requested to escalate her complaint on 13 July 2021. The landlord declined, as it was discussing internally what works the remaining window replacements should be classed as.
  3. This was nevertheless not appropriate as, according to the code, landlords should not unreasonably refuse to escalate a complaint through all stages of the complaints procedure, and must have clear and valid reasons for taking that course of action. The landlord had instead already informed the resident on 13 July 2021 that her remaining windows would not be replaced at the same time as her living room window, which she then attempted to complain to it about, but it denied her the opportunity to do so while it discussed the matter internally. This was contrary to the code because this was not a reasonable, clear or valid explanation for not escalating the complaint, which would have to be discussed internally anyway in order for it to respond to this.
  4. The resident then further complained to the landlord on 27 October 2021but her complaint was not responded to. She complained to it again on 7 April 2022, where it once more did not respond to her. After intervention from the Ombudsman at the resident’s request on 18 August 2022, the landlord finally sent her a final stage complaint response on 1 September 2022.
  5. This was almost 5 months after the resident’s latest complaint in April 2022, and over 13 months after she first asked to escalate her complaint, exceeding the policy for corporate complaints’ 30-working-day final stage response timescale by approximately a year, and only responding at all after the Ombudsman’s intervention. The landlord’s refusal to respond to the resident unnecessarily prolonged her complaint, causing her unnecessary additional time, trouble, distress and inconvenience. It has also not offered an explanation or any remedy for its repeated failure to respond to her complaints, which is inappropriate. This is therefore a failing in the circumstances.
  6. As a consequence, the landlord has been ordered below to pay the resident an additional £150 compensation in recognition of its poor complaint handling in the resident’s case. It has also been recommended below to review its staff’s training needs with regard to their implementation of its policy for corporate complaints and the code, to ensure that it issues timely and appropriate complaint responses and progress reports in every case.
  7. The landlord has additionally been recommended below to review the labelling and location of its self-assessment of its compliance with the code on its website, to ensure that these are as clear and accessible as possible. This is because the self-assessment, including its explanation for exceeding the code’s final stage complaint response timescale, is currently labelled “Appendix B – Self-Assessment Form” on its website under the heading “Compliments”.

Determination (decision)

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure by the landlord in its handling of the replacement of the resident’s windows.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in its complaint handling.

Orders and recommendations

  1. The landlord is ordered to:
    1. Pay the resident £550 total compensation within 4 weeks, which is broken down into:
      1. £200 compensation it previously offered in total to her during its complaint procedure and subsequently via the Ombudsman, if she has not received this already.
      2. £200 further compensation to fully acknowledge her distress and inconvenience caused by its errors in handling the replacement of her windows.
      3. £150 additional compensation in recognition of its poor complaint handling.
    2. Contact the resident within 4 weeks to confirm its schedule of works with her for the replacement of her remaining windows, if it has not done so already.
  2. It is recommended that the landlord:
    1. Review its staff’s training needs with regard to their implementation of its policy for corporate complaints and the code, to ensure that it issues timely and appropriate complaint responses and progress reports in every case.
    2. Review the labelling and location of its self-assessment of its compliance with the code on its website, to ensure that these are as clear and accessible as possible.
  3. The landlord shall contact the Ombudsman within 4 weeks to confirm that it has complied with the above orders, and whether it will follow the above recommendations.