Barnet Homes (202004063)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202004063

Barnet Homes

23 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 complaint

The complaint refers to:
1. The landlord’s handling of repairs to the resident’s property.
2. The resident’s concerns relating to staff conduct.

Background

The resident is a tenant of the landlord.

Summary of events

The resident had previously reported repair issues in her property. A structural survey took place in September 2018 which found issues that related to cracks in the external wall, broken tiles on the single-storey roof above her kitchen, cracks to the walls inside her property, and her roof which was “sagging” slightly.
The resident raised a complaint over the phone with the landlord on 16 December 2019. The landlord’s records show that this was because the agreed repair works had not been completed.
The landlord issued its stage one complaint response to the resident regarding her repairs on 2 January 2020 which stated the following:
1. It acknowledged the outstanding works needed to the resident’s property and noted that its contractor had attended an appointment on 12 June 2019 where it was determined that a structural survey of the property was needed due to the cracks in the walls. Following the survey, a joint visit took place in July 2019. It advised that there had been a significant failing in communication between itself and the contractor, and as a result the repair works had not been addressed. It confirmed that its contractor would be in touch with the resident to arrange the repair works to the walls, carpentry, and roofing.
2. It apologised for the length of time it had taken to arrange these repair works and for any inconvenience or upset this may have caused the resident. It had spoken to all staff members involved and asked them to ensure that their communication improved to avoid any further delay or disturbance.
3. It noted that the resident had previously raised a complaint in relation to her fence on 26 June 2019 which it had responded to on 8 July 2019. After this, there had been no other record of complaint until this one on 16 December 2019. It noted that a call-back was logged in September 2019 although no complaint was recorded at this time. It apologised if there had been an error and explained that as no formal complaint was logged, the resident would not have received a formal response. It hoped that it had now explained its position.
4. The landlord upheld the complaint; it said that if the resident was dissatisfied, she could escalate her complaint to stage two of the landlord’s internal complaints process.
On 20 March 2020 the resident raised a separate complaint to the landlord in relation to the conduct of a member of its staff. She said that the member of staff had been laughing at her over the phone and that this was not the first instance of this. The resident said she had requested for her fence to be repaired properly as the fence panels were weak, and the staff member had said “you get what you are given”. The resident affirmed that the staff member’s conduct was unprofessional and rude. The resident also raised concerns regarding her fence panels and stated that she did not want the panels that the landlord had chosen as she felt that they were unsafe; she also informed the landlord that the previous fence panel had fallen on her.
The resident raised a separate complaint on 16 April 2020. The landlord’s records state that this was in relation to the repair work which had been completed to her fence. She was dissatisfied as the contractors had left the previous fence panels in her garden and had not installed a gate where the previous gate used to be; instead they had covered it with part of the old fence. The landlord’s records show that the old fence panels were collected on 22 April 2020.
The landlord sent an acknowledgement email to the resident on 16 April 2020 regarding her fence repairs and confirmed that she would receive a response within 15 working days. It is noted that this complaint was due to be managed by the same staff member which the resident had complained about.
The landlord provided a stage one complaint response in relation to the resident’s fence repairs on 23 April 2020 and concluded the following:
1. It noted that the repair work to the resident’s fence was raised on 4 March 2020 for the contractor to attend at a later date. On completion of the repair works, the contractor had left the old fence at the property and had not reinstated the gate. It explained that the contractors were due to collect the old fence panels by 24 April 2020 at the landlord’s request. Further follow-up works required to reinstate the gate would be carried out once the Covid-19 restrictions had been lifted. It asked the resident to provide photos of the gate so that the works could be progressed after the lockdown.
2. The landlord then explained the difficulties it had faced in relation to repair works as it had decided to change the contracting company it used to deliver repairs. It said that this change had led to a number of delays for which it apologised. It noted that the Covid-19 pandemic had caused further difficulties and delays and as a result it was prioritising emergency repairs during this time.
3. The landlord upheld the resident’s complaint as the level of customer service was not acceptable. It apologised for any inconvenience and advised the resident that if she remained dissatisfied, she could escalate her complaint to stage two of its internal complaints procedure.
On 24 July 2020 the resident emailed the landlord and requested a response in relation to her previous complaint regarding staff conduct as she had not received any communication.
On 30 July 2020 the landlord issued a stage one complaint response to the resident in relation to her complaint about the conduct of one of its members of staff. It apologised that she had not received a response and acknowledged that the resident’s initial email had been sent in March 2020, although it had no record of this on its system. It apologised that the staff member had been unprofessional towards the resident, and it explained that, due to a number of complaints received about the staff member, it had decided to remove the staff member from the business. It hoped that this would reassure the resident that it had listened to feedback given by its residents. It noted that the resident had also complained about her fence repair and stated that this work had now been completed. It stated that the panels were the only type of fence panels the landlord used in all properties; and if the fence had been installed properly, it should be extremely safe.
The resident emailed the landlord on 5 August 2020 and expressed dissatisfaction with the contractor who had attended her property. She said that she had asked about the drain in her garden, which did not have a cover, and she felt was causing a blockage. The contractor had apparently responded unprofessionally. She explained that the wall next to her boiler had water damage from an external pipe which had been repaired previously. The contractor had advised that there was nothing wrong with the wall. The resident contended that the contractor had been intimidating and had raised his voice. She also noted that she had asked the contractor to communicate via email, although they had called her on numerous occasions. She asked the landlord for a list of outstanding works, to arrange for a different contractor to carry out the works required in her property, and for compensation for the outstanding repairs. The resident sent a further email informing the landlord that the contractor had not been wearing any identification. She explained that the contractor had visited her property five times and had not carried out any repair works which had been overdue for seven years. She explained that the contractor had also not attended when they said they would.
The landlord emailed the resident on 6 August 2020 and acknowledged her previous emails. It advised that it would forward her concerns to its complaints team so that they were logged correctly. It confirmed that it would investigate her allegations of the unprofessional behaviour of the contractor and would respond to the resident with a list of works which were outstanding. It requested further information from the resident in relation to her kitchen. It noted that the resident had said that she did not need an upgrade as she had installed her own kitchen. It asked the resident whether she had sought permission from the landlord at the time of fitting the kitchen.
The resident responded on 6 August 2020 and said that she could not be expected to remember events which had happened 15 years ago. She explained that she would not need “planning permission” for a kitchen replacement and this would only be needed if she were to build something new like an extension. She asked what the landlord was insinuating and again asked for a list of the outstanding repairs needed to her property. She again expressed dissatisfaction with the conduct of the contractor and that her garden fence did not have a gate. She contended that the fencing had not been placed properly and that each fence panel was a different height. She asked the landlord to complete the structural repairs to her property along with repairs to her gutters, fencing, and the side gate. She also requested that all further communication take place via email.
The landlord acknowledged the resident’s emails on 7 August 2020 and confirmed that it had escalated her complaints to stage two of its internal complaints process. It confirmed that the resident would receive a response within ten working days, although this may take longer due to the impact of Covid-19. The resident responded the same day and requested that a different member of staff manage her complaint, as she felt the staff member had ignored her previous complaints over six years. The landlord responded and confirmed it had re-allocated her complaint to another member of staff.
The resident sent a further email on 9 August 2020 and asked for a list of the planned works to her property. She said that she did not want any further inspections as there had been 15 visits in total and she believed the landlord had enough information to start the work. She asked the landlord to confirm when the repair works were due to start.
The Landlord issued its stage two complaint response on 21 August 2020 and concluded the following:
1. In relation to the outstanding repairs at the resident’s property, the landlord noted that the resident had reported an issue with her fence in June 2019. Its contractors had then replaced three fence posts and three fence panels. The resident had not been satisfied with these works and had been contacting the landlord in regard to this ever since. The contractor had also removed a gate which had not been replaced. Following this, the landlord then arranged for the fence to be renewed.
2. It noted that a structural survey of the resident’s property had been completed in 2018, although the repair works were raised in January 2020. The landlord apologised for this unacceptable delay. It said that the member of staff handling this matter had left the business and the repair orders had not been raised at the time. It advised that it would be putting processes in place to ensure this did not happen in the future.
3. The repair orders raised in January 2020 were then cancelled and passed to a different contractor. This was because the landlord was due to change contractors on 31 March 2020 and the repair works would not be completed in time. It noted that the resident had called to request an update on the repair works to both her fence and property in February 2020. The landlord then confirmed it had chased these works. Following this, all non-emergency works were put on hold due to the impact of Covid-19.
4. The landlord added that it had not handled the repair works to the standard it would like. It identified that there had been a clear lack of communication and a significant delay in works being completed for which it apologised. It explained that all repair works had now been passed to its planned works team. It noted that the resident said that the contractor who attended her property had been unprofessional. It confirmed that it had spoken to the contractor who had extended their apologies for the way they came across. They had said that they were trying to explain the works which needed to be done, and the resident had not been happy with this. The landlord appreciated that the resident may feel frustrated due to the time it had taken to progress the repairs. It attached a list of the repair works needed to the resident’s property and stated that it would oversee the progression of the works.
5. In relation to the conduct of its staff member, the landlord apologised that the staff member had laughed at the resident over the phone. It maintained its previous position that the complaint had only been received in July 2020, despite being sent in March 2020. It noted that the staff member was no longer working for the landlord and therefore the matter had been resolved.
6. In view of the delays and poor customer service the resident had received, the landlord offered an award of £50 compensation. It stated that this would be credited to the resident’s rent account which was in arrears.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s handling of repair works

It is noted that the resident has stated that the landlord’s handling of the repair issues has exacerbated her medical conditions and affected her health. The Ombudsman does not doubt her testimony. However, it is beyond the expertise of this Service to make a determination on whether there was a direct link between the delay in the repair works and the resident’s health. The resident therefore may wish to seek independent advice on making a personal injury claim if she considers that her health has been affected by any action or lack thereof by the landlord.
The landlord’s Repair Policy states that programmed works, which are not a “first-time fix” and require a pre-inspection, should be completed within 25 working days. Planned works, which are larger and more complex and may require more than three appointments, should be completed within 60 working days. The Repair Policy also states that the landlord has no statutory responsibility to provide front, rear, or dividing fencing. The landlord may, at its discretion, consider replacing or repairing fencing only where it is needed to provide protection and/or privacy from people or vehicles entering a garden where it borders a busy thoroughfare or public space. Where a decision is made to repair or replace fencing, the style of fencing will be based on that which offers best value for money and will be at the discretion of the landlord. The Tenancy Agreement states that the landlord would be responsible for repairing the structure of the property.

Fencing

Repair works to the resident’s fence panels were completed in March 2020, but the resident expressed dissatisfaction that her gate had not been reinstated and the contractors had not removed the old fence panels. The landlord has acknowledged that the gate had not been reinstated and explained that it would undertake work to renew this once the lockdown restrictions had lifted, which was appropriate as it was only carrying out emergency works at the time in line with government guidance. It also took reasonable steps to arrange for the old fence panels to be removed on 22 April 2020.
In line with the landlord’s Repair Policy, the landlord is not obliged to replace or repair the resident’s fencing. However, it was reasonable for the landlord to do so in this case following the resident’s further complaints about the quality of the repair work done in 2019. The resident stated that the fence panels chosen were not appropriate. In line with the landlord’s Repairs Policy, the landlord has discretion on the style of fencing supplied and whilst the Ombudsman notes the resident’s comments, we have not been provided with supporting evidence to show the fencing is unsafe or unusable. If the resident would prefer different fencing, she could undertake this change herself as the landlord is not obliged to do so. The resident should discuss any proposed change to the fencing with the landlord in advance in line with her obligations under the tenancy agreement to seek permission before carrying out any improvements to the property. The landlord has not provided evidence to suggest that it has now reinstated the gate. It is therefore recommended that the landlord takes steps to reinstate the resident’s gate as previously agreed if it has not done so already.
The resident has asked the landlord to compensate her for the delays in completing required repair works and for the poor customer service she received. It would have been helpful for the landlord to explain its obligations in relation to the fence at an earlier stage to manage the resident’s expectations of what it would be willing to offer her to resolve her concerns about the work carried out in 2019. However, the landlord is not required to award compensation for any delays related to the fencing and gate as the landlord was not obliged to repair or replace the fencing at all. The landlord acted above its obligations and therefore would not be expected to compensate the resident for this matter. Although consideration has been given to compensation for the further repair issues relating to the walls and roof as well as poor communication about these issues.

Structural Repairs

The resident has complained about the length of time it has taken to progress repair works at her property. The landlord has acknowledged that a structural survey took place in September 2018 which identified the repair issues. Another visit to the property took place in June 2019 where it established that a further survey was needed; this was completed in July 2019. Following this no repair works were raised until January 2020 when the resident followed up this matter in the form of a complaint. The repair works were then cancelled as the landlord had scheduled to change its contractors on 31 March 2020. Following this, the works were not progressed due to the lockdown restrictions in place due to the impact of Covid-19.
There has been maladministration in respect of the landlord’s handling of the repairs needed to the resident’s property. It is acknowledged that a structural survey took place in 2018, therefore the landlord was aware of repair issues at the resident’s property. The landlord has not provided an explanation as to why repair works were not raised following this survey. The landlord’s repair policy states that planned works should be completed within 60 working days. Following the survey completed in July 2019, it would have been appropriate for the landlord to complete these works by October 2019 at the latest. If the works were not due to progress within this timeframe the landlord should have made the resident aware of any delays. The landlord has acknowledged that the repair orders were not raised due to a staff member leaving. This delay and explanation were not appropriate as the landlord should have processes in place to ensure repair works are carried out as normal following staff absence. It is recommended that the landlord takes steps to review this process to ensure that repair works are not overlooked.
Additionally, the landlord has stated that the repairs were raised in January 2020 but has not provided specific dates. The landlord would therefore have been expected to complete the works required by the end of March 2020 in line with the 60-day timescale. At this stage, the landlord cancelled the works due to an internal change of contractors scheduled for 31 March 2020. Whilst the resident was made aware of the contractor change in the landlord’s complaint response on 23 April 2020, the resident should have been provided with a clear timescale of how long the repair works were expected to take and provided with an explanation as to why the repairs could not be completed by the initial contractors before the end of March 2020 in line with the 60-day timeframe, prior to the scheduled change. There is no evidence to suggest that the landlord communicated with the resident in relation to this further delay.
The landlord moved its focus to emergency repair work as a result of the lockdown and restrictions in place due to Covid-19. It should be noted that this delay was outside of the landlord’s control, although the landlord would have been expected to progress these works once the restrictions had lifted. Nevertheless, this aspect does not detract from the landlord’s failure to complete the required works at an earlier stage. The landlord has not provided any evidence to suggest that these works have now been completed at the resident’s property, highlighting a considerable timeframe which is likely to have caused the resident a significant amount of inconvenience and frustration.
Overall, there has been maladministration in respect of the landlord’s handling of repairs at the resident’s property. The landlord had been aware of the repair issues at the resident’s property since 2018 and has not satisfactorily completed these repairs within 60 working days in line with its Repairs Policy once raised. The landlord has not successfully communicated with the resident during this time in relation to the expected completion date for the repair works or managed her expectations that the works were due to be progressed.
The landlord has acknowledged and apologised for the significant delay in raising repair orders, but it has not satisfactorily recognised the time and trouble the resident had spent pursuing these works, nor has it offered suitable compensation in relation to the inconvenience this may have caused. The landlord has offered £50 compensation for the delays and poor customer service. The landlord’s Compensation Policy states that amounts in this range are suitable where there is a low impact on the resident and the service failures are “reasonably tolerable” which is not proportionate in regard to this complaint.
In light of the above, the landlord should offer a further award of compensation to the resident. The repair works have not stopped the resident from using her property as usual, although the resident has spent time and energy chasing these works and the delay in carrying out these works from 2018-2020 is significant. 2018-2020. It is not clear as to whether the structural repair works, or gate installation have now been completed at the resident’s property. Whilst the impact of Covid-19 is likely to have caused some further delay, the landlord should take steps to progress these works. The landlord should provide both the resident and this Service a list of the completed and outstanding works, alongside the target deadlines for such works to be completed. It should also carry out a post-work inspection to confirm whether these works have been completed to standard.

The resident’s concerns related to staff conduct.

The resident has expressed dissatisfaction in relation to both the landlord’s staff and contractor’s conduct. The Ombudsman will not form a view on whether the staff member’s actions themselves were appropriate. Instead, it is this Service’s role to decide whether the Landlord adequately investigated and responded to the complaint, and took proportionate action based on the information available to it. For staff conduct complaints, landlords should carry out an investigation. For example, the landlord would generally conduct interviews and gather evidence from all parties, making an informed decision based on its findings.
The resident initially raised a complaint on 20 March 2020 about the conduct of a member of the landlord’s staff during a telephone call. The landlord has stated that it did not receive this email until the resident followed up the matter on 24 July 2020. The landlord then responded on 30 July 2020 and explained that due to the number of complaints it had received about the staff member, the staff member was no longer working for the landlord. It then apologised to the resident for any distress this had caused. It is clear that the landlord took steps to resolve the matter internally following its residents’ feedback. However, it would have been appropriate for the landlord to address this matter at an earlier stage as the same staff member had handled the stage one complaint response in relation to her fence following the resident’s report about their conduct in March 2020. If the landlord had acknowledged and logged the email, the same staff member would not have been involved in dealing with a separate complaint. Furthermore, due to the email on 20 March 2020 not being logged correctly, there was a delay in providing a stage one response to the resident which was likely to cause further inconvenience.
The resident raised further concerns about the behaviour of the contractor who had attended her property on 5 August 2020. The landlord addressed this matter in its stage two response on 21 August 2020 and explained that it had spoken to the contractor who had apologised for the way they had come across. Since the resident and the contractor’s record of events had differed, it was reasonable that the landlord would not have sufficient evidence to take any further action.
The resident has also raised concerns about why a staff member had asked her if she had sought permission before making alterations to her kitchen. It is clear that the resident had found the question to be inappropriate. It is agreed that the resident would not need to seek ‘planning permission’ for internal works for her kitchen, although the resident’s Tenancy Agreement states that a resident would have the right to carry out improvements in their home. However, they must ask the landlord for permission first. It was therefore reasonable for the staff member to ask the resident whether permission had been sought at the time. This information would also be necessary as the landlord would not be obliged to carry out repairs to the components of the resident’s kitchen if she had organised the installation herself.
There has been service failure by the landlord in respect of its handling of the resident’s concerns related to staff conduct. The landlord has taken reasonable steps to address the resident’s concerns and has taken action to remove certain staff members and speak to the contractor with respect to their behaviour, although it has not acknowledged the inconvenience caused to the resident as a result of failing to address this matter sooner. The landlord has apologised to the resident for any inconvenience that the staff member may have caused. It is recommended that the landlord carries out staff training to ensure that its frontline staff communicate in a professional manner to ensure similar situations do not occur in the future. It should also train staff handling internal emails to ensure that these are recorded and responded to correctly.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in respect of its handling of the repairs to the resident’s property.
In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure by the landlord in respect of its handling of the resident’s concerns related to staff conduct.

Reasons

The landlord has acknowledged and apologised for the delays to the repair works needed at the resident’s property at each stage of the complaints process. However, it has not offered suitable redress for its service failure and the significant delay in progressing and completing repair works. The landlord has not fully acknowledged the inconvenience it may have caused the resident due to its lack of clarity and communication surrounding the repairs.
The landlord has taken reasonable steps to investigate the resident’s reports of poor staff conduct. The landlord would need to have sufficient evidence to take any formal action against its staff or contractors; it was therefore reasonable that the landlord took steps to remove its staff member. However, the landlord has not addressed the inconvenience which may have been caused to the resident as the same staff member handled a further complaint about the resident’s fencing. The landlord has also apologised to the resident for any distress which may have been caused.

Orders

The Ombudsman orders that the following actions take place within four weeks:
1. The landlord is to write to the resident and the Ombudsman and provide a list of the completed and outstanding works to the property. This should also detail the expected timescales for any further repair works needed.
2. The landlord is to pay the resident £300, comprised of:
  1. £150 in recognition of the delay in progressing and completing repair work at the resident’s property. (This includes the £50 offered by the landlord previously which can be deducted from the total if it has already been paid.)
  2. £150 in recognition of the inconvenience and distress caused to the resident during this time.

Recommendations

It is recommended that the landlord takes steps to review its repairs process to ensure that repair works are not overlooked when staff leave the business.
It is recommended that the landlord takes steps to reinstate the resident’s gate as previously agreed if it has not done so already.
It is recommended that the landlord takes steps to carry out staff training for staff handling internal emails to ensure that these are recorded and responded to correctly. It should also ensure that its frontline staff communicate in a professional manner to ensure similar situations do not occur in the future.
Once the repairs are reported as completed at the resident’s property, the landlord should consider carrying out a post-inspection to ensure the repair works have been carried out to a satisfactory standard.