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

Lambeth Council (201910354)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 201910354

Lambeth Council

18 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

  1. The complaint is about the landlord’s:
    1. response to the resident’s concerns about plans for electrical works at her property;
    2. response to the resident’s reports about anti-social behaviour (ASB) from her neighbour, including:
      1. noise nuisance;
      2. cigarette smoke entering her property;
    3. response to the resident’s reports about the conduct of its contractor’s staff;
    4. response to the resident’s request for compensation following missed appointments;
    5. response to the resident’s reports about multiple repair works at her property, including:
      1. maintenance works to her neighbour’s tree;
      1. repairs to her skylight window;
      2. repairs to damp on her wall and windowsills;
      3. repairs to her rear windows;
      4. refurbishment of her kitchen; and
    6. complaints handling.

 

 

Jurisdiction

  1. What we can and cannot consider is called the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. This is governed by the Housing Ombudsman Scheme. When a complaint is brought to the Ombudsman, we must consider all the circumstances of the case as there are sometimes reasons why a complaint will not be investigated.
  2. Paragraph 39(a) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme notes as follows:

39. The Ombudsman will not investigate complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion:

a) are made prior to having exhausted a member’s complaints procedure, unless there is evidence of a complaint handling failure and the Ombudsman is satisfied that the member has not taken action within a reasonable timescale.

  1. On 8 June 2020, the resident expressed concern to the landlord that its proposed electrical works following its inspection in June 2020 were likely to cause unsightly damage to her walls. It is not evident what the landlord’s response to these concerns was, nor is it evident that the resident has raised this issue as a formal complaint.
  2. After carefully considering all the evidence, in accordance with paragraph 39(a) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the complaint regarding the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about plans for electrical works at her property is outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.
  3. If the resident makes a formal complaint, progresses it through the landlord’s internal complaints procedure and is dissatisfied with the outcome, she will not be prevented from then bringing the complaint to this service.

Background and summary of events

Background

  1. The landlord operates a two stage complaints policy. A stage one response will normally be provided within 20 days and be confirmed in writing. The policy does not note a timeframe for providing a stage two response.
  2. The landlord operates a compensation policy. The policy notes compensation for ‘time and trouble’ is between £50 to £250. Compensation for missed appointments is £20.
  3. The landlord operates a repairs policy. The policy notes there are five categories of priority for repairs, with response times of 24 hours, two, five, 30, or 90 working days respectively. The policy does not give examples of what repairs fall into what category.
  4. The landlord uses a contractor to complete some repair works on its behalf.
  5. The landlord operates a tenancy enforcement policy which relates to ASB. The policy notes the landlord will respond to ‘low risk’ cases within five to ten working days. The policy lists noise, litter, and garden nuisance as types of ASB. The policy notes a number of actions the landlord can take to tackle ASB including mediation and monitoring equipment, as well as legal measures. ‘Tenancy enforcement officers’ can take actions such as giving verbal warnings and sending letters if proportionate.
  6. The landlord’s model tenancy agreement notes that tenants are responsible for keeping their garden tidy, including keeping trees trimmed back so they do not cause a nuisance to others.
  7. The resident has previously brought a complaint regarding ASB from her neighbour to this service. A determination was made by this service on 6 April 2017, and a subsequent review of that determination was made on 15 December 2017. The determination found that there was service failure by the landlord for not considering the resident’s complaint regarding deliberate noise caused by the neighbour, and for not responding to the resident’s further complaints regarding the ongoing issue. The Ombudsman subsequently ordered that the landlord must arrange for sound monitoring equipment to be installed to assist with its ongoing ASB investigation. The outcome of the review did not change the findings in the determination.

Summary of events

  1. Following this service’s review outcome, the resident reported ongoing noise ASB to the landlord on 26 December 2017. The landlord replied on 8 January 2018 and agreed to attend the property for 30 mins in order to witness first-hand the noise. The resident expressed concerns that this may not be long enough and made enquiries as to when the sound monitoring equipment would be installed. The resident also enquired as to what steps the landlord would take should the sound monitoring equipment reveal there was excessive noise. The resident further noted that the works done to her property were to insulate it from cigarette smoke from the neighbours, not from noise. The landlord subsequently advised its “Housing’s enforcement team … will hopefully identify any appropriate further action that might be taken in regards to your complaint” during their upcoming meeting. It is not disputed that the landlord attended the property on 10 January 2018, however, it is not evident what was discussed. On 22 January 2018, the resident subsequently reiterated her request for the landlord to advise what action it could take. It is not evident that the landlord responded to this request.
  2. The sound monitoring equipment was installed on 24 January 2018 and subsequently uninstalled on 30 January 2018. On the same date, the resident reiterated her request for the landlord to advise what action it could take, and also advised that she was still experiencing excessive cigarette smoke in her apartment. On 31 January 2018, she reported further excessive noise from her neighbours and expressed concern that the neighbours had overheard the installation of noise monitoring equipment and subsequently reduced their noise during the period it was installed. She subsequently requested the noise monitoring equipment be reinstalled.
  3. Between 3 February 2018 and 16 February 2018, the resident sent a number of emails to the landlord reiterating her concerns about the cigarette smoke and requesting a response. The landlord replied on 16 February 2018 and advised that during its visit on 10 January 2020, it “did not detect any noise from her neighbours.” Regarding reinstallation of the noise monitoring equipment, the landlord advised that the resident had been placed on a waiting list and would install it again when it was available. Regarding possible sound proofing works, the landlord advised it would need to see the results of the noise monitoring equipment before being able to advise what works could be undertaken. The landlord also advised that it had previously installed a ‘drop ceiling’ and extractor fan in the neighbour’s property to address the smoke issues. On 5 March 2018, the landlord advised that it had “analysed the data” from the sound monitoring equipment and that “although some sound was detected this was not constant nor was it at a level that would be deemed as anti-social behaviour, but rather that of day to day living noise.” It further advised that it “agreed the noise machine be installed again due to inconclusive results from the initial installation.”
  4. The noise monitoring equipment was reinstalled on or around 14 August 2018 and subsequently removed on 24 August 2018. On 23 August 2018, the resident advised that “the machine is now unplugged – it was a quiet week.” She also advised she had attempted to turn it on to record some noise, but that the noise “didn’t last long enough for me to get to record.” She further advised that on one occasion “the machine appeared to have turned itself off as the LED would not turn on. It didn’t work when I needed it therefore it is unplugged and no more of my energy will be wasted.”
  5. On 10 September 2018, the resident reported that the landlord’s repair works contractor had not attended an appointment to repair her letter box, nor had it contacted her to arrange another appointment. The landlord subsequently arranged for its surveyor to contact the resident to discuss the repair works on 12 September 2018.
  6. On 20 September 2018, the resident requested an update on the results from the second noise monitoring equipment recordings. She also provided the landlord with additional recordings of noise she had made on her mobile phone. She further requested the landlord advise her what options she had regarding the excessive cigarette smoke entering her property.
  7. On 23 September 2018, the resident reported that a “damp patch” had appeared on her living room wall and provided photographic evidence. She also advised her gutters needed clearing. It is not evident that the landlord responded to these reports and the resident subsequently requested an update on 12 October 2018. On 14 October 2018, the resident additionally reported that “there are actual leaves falling down through the skylight.” The landlord responded on the same date and advised its surveyor would contact the resident to discuss it further.
  8. On 17 October 2018, the resident reported that the landlord’s contractor had attended the property to complete the repairs, but that during the visit, the contractor’s staff had spoken to her rudely in a raised voice and had been “abusive, aggressive, [with] unsettling behaviour”. It is not evident that the landlord responded to this report.
  9. On 12 November 2018, the resident reported that the landlord’s contractors had missed a further appointment on 22 October 2018. She subsequently requested “compensation for the missed appointment.” On 13 November 2018, the resident reported that a further missed appointment had occurred and made a further request for compensation. She also noted that works to clear her guttering remained outstanding, which she reiterated again on 15 November 2018.
  10. On 20 November 2018, the resident made a further ASB noise complaint and also reported that the neighbour’s animals had fouled the shared front entrance area. On 27 November 2018, the resident advised that a further appointment to attend to the skylight had been cancelled on the day by the landlord’s contractors. On 4 December 2018, the resident reiterated the repair works that remained outstanding (the skylight and the damp patch), and further advised that her neighbour’s trees needed trimming. She again noted that she was yet to receive compensation for the missed appointments to date.
  11. On 10 January 2019, the landlord provided the resident with its proposed layout for a refurbishment to the kitchen at her property. The resident responded with her comments on 11 January 2019. On 21 February 2019, the resident reported that damp patches had also appeared beneath her windows at the rear of the property.
  12. On 4 March 2019, regarding the continued instances of cigarette smoke entering her property, the resident requested the landlord carry out a “HHSRS (HOUSING HEALTH SAFETY RATING SYSTEM) inspection.” She further noted that “you have a duty to execute this and compile a report with recommendations which I am entitled to receive also.” The landlord replied on 5 March 2019 and advised it had forwarded the resident’s request to its ‘Estate Services team’. It also advised it had forwarded the resident’s latest ASB complaints to its ASB team and advised her that each team should respond “within ten working days.” The resident followed this up on the same date and advised that the request for the HHSRS need to go to the landlord’s ‘environmental health’ team.
  13. Between 5 March 2019 and 10 May 2019, the resident made a number of requests for updates regarding her complaints. It is not evident that the landlord replied over this period. On 10 May 2019, the landlord advised it had arranged for its surveyor to complete an inspection to determine the works required. The resident replied on the same date and disputed that a further inspection was required. On 13 May 2019, the landlord reiterated that a further inspection was required. On 16 May 2019, the landlord further explained the need for an additional inspection and advised that it needed to determine if the rear windows needed replacing. On the same date, the resident requested that the other repair jobs be booked in. It is not evident that the landlord responded to this request.
  14. Between 15 September 2019 and 7 November 2019, the resident made three further requests for updates. On 26 November 2019, the landlord advised it was now treating the resident’s reports as a formal complaint under its internal complaints procedure, and that it would provide a response by 19 December 2019. On 23 December 2019, the landlord provided its stage one response. It apologised for the delays to the works and advised that “I am currently looking into this matter and awaiting feedback,” and that “I anticipate to have this information early next week.” On 4 February 2020, the resident advised it had still not received any further response.
  15. On 4 April 2020, the resident reported that her neighbour had drawn chalk graffiti on her property. The landlord replied on 15 April 2020 and advised that the reports had been passed on to its ‘tenancy enforcement officer’. On 20 April 2020, the resident requested that the landlord write to the neighbour and request that in addition to removing the graffiti, they also reduce their noise. The resident also referenced a letter she had received from the landlord which requested the resident to keep a further noise diary. She subsequently expressed her dissatisfaction with this request and advised she had previously given the landlord “detailed emails.” This service has not been provided with a copy of the landlord’s request. The landlord replied on 21 April 2020 and advised that if the neighbour continued to ignore its warning letters, it would “need as much evidence as possible [to take further action] and we can only get these evidence with your assistance.”
  16. On the same date, following a request for a review of its formal response from this service, the landlord advised it would provide its response by 27 April 2020 and that it would “inform you if I need extra few days to complete my review.”
  17. On 30 April 2020, the resident reiterated her noise ASB complaints to the landlord and advised that the neighbour had “brought this broken bench from her back garden and placed it out front … making the place look trashy.” The landlord replied on 6 May 2020 and advised it had written to the neighbour and given a deadline of 10 days to remove the bench and the graffiti. It further advised “If she fails to do this I will make arrangements for these items to be removed and arrange for our cleaners to clean up the chalk mess.” Regarding the noise, it advised that it had contacted other neighbours in the area to try and get supporting statements with a view to pursuing “an environmental or public nuisance, which means we have more powers to deal with it promptly and effectively.” The resident replied on the same date and advised that as the noise was “impact not airborne … no one else would feel it.”
  18. The landlord provided its stage two response on 6 May 2020. It apologised for the delay to its response. Regarding the reports of ongoing ASB, the landlord noted that its inspection and subsequent installation of noise monitoring equipment in January 2018 did not detect excessive noise. It also noted the resident’s advice that the neighbours were on holiday during the second period of the noise monitoring equipment installation. It noted that the resident had attended mediation with her neighbour in March 2019, but this had been unsuccessful. It advised its enforcement officer was continuing to monitor the situation, and in the absence of any change, it would “look to prepare an action plan on how to reduce the noise nuisance.” Regarding the resident’s allegations that the animal fouling in the entrance area was caused by the neighbour, the landlord advised that “the allegations cannot be proven. Additionally, there is no evidence of who the culprit is.” It further advised that in accordance with its repairs policy, it would be unable to install any acoustic soundproofing. It concluded it would continue to monitor the case and take appropriate action promptly.
  19. Regarding the resident’s request for an HHSRS inspection, the landlord advised that “we do not carry out HHSRS inspections to properties. This is not a service that we can provide.” It further apologised that this was not communicated to the resident following her initial request.
  20. Regarding an apology following the conduct of its contractor’s staff during the repair works, the landlord advised that it “was informed by the Area Surveyor that this matter was being dealt with by the contractor … who would have arranged contacts.” It further offered its “apologies for any unacceptable behaviour displayed by the operative who visited your home.”
  21. Regarding the missed appointments, the landlord gave a detailed list of the repair works carried out at the property, and noted that the resident had reported two missed appointments regarding the repair works to clear her gutter raised on 22 October 2018 and subsequently completed on 6 December 2018. The landlord offered its apologies for any missed appointments and subsequently provided its compensation request form for the resident to complete in relation to these appointments. It further noted that an inspection appointment on 13 May 2019 had been cancelled by its contractor. It advised that “the forms would need to be completed and returned for the contractor to consider whether the appointment was missed by their operatives.”
  22. Regarding the repairs to the skylight, the landlord noted that the issue was reported by the resident on 7 August 2018 and that the works were completed on 24 August 2018. It advised that if the problem was persisting, to raise a new work order following the lifting of COVID-19 restrictions.
  23. Regarding damp to the windows, the landlord noted the resident initially reported the same on 13 August 2018. It subsequently listed a number of other repair works which it had carried out regarding the windows prior to this report and advised that all “works were carried out according to the orders.”
  24. Regarding the damp to the walls, the landlord advised the repair works were completed 6 December 2018. It also advised that it would continue to clear the resident’s gutters upon any further reports they had been blocked.
  25. Regarding replacing the rear windows, the landlord noted its surveyor had advised the resident it needed to complete an inspection to determine if the works were necessary. An inspection date was booked for the morning of 17 May 2019, however, the resident wished to change this to the afternoon, which the surveyor could not attend. The surveyor subsequently offered alternative dates, but the resident “did not confirm a particular date that you found suitable.” The landlord subsequently requested that the resident advise her availability for an inspection following the lifting of COVID-19 restrictions.
  26. Regarding the works to trim her neighbour’s trees, it noted the resident had reported the issue on 1 September 2017 and followed it up on 20 September 2017, and again on 10 August 2018. On 22 August 2018, the landlord attended the property and advised that “it was the tenant’s responsibility to maintain the tree.” On 10 September 2018, the resident subsequently requested the landlord update her following its inspection of the tree. The landlord advised its ‘aboricultural officer’ reported that “it did not require any maintenance work. There was no issue with Health & Safety or any damage being caused by the tree.” It further advised that the resident had “the right to prune overgrown branches from neighbouring properties back to the boundary.” It further advised it would arrange a further inspection following the lifting of COVID-19 restrictions.
  27. Regarding the refurbishment to the resident’s kitchen, the landlord noted it had initial discussions with the resident in December 2018, following which, the resident contacted it in April 2019 for an update. The resident again chased up the refurbishment on 10 January 2020 and noted that rewiring would also need to occur as the current wiring was faulty and had resulted in damage to her electrical goods, for which she requested compensation. The landlord apologised that the resident had not received any follow up regarding the kitchen refurbishment and advised that “Major Works team have not been able to carry out the works.” It further provided information about how the resident could make an insurance claim and advised it would arrange for an inspection of the resident’s electrical wiring.
  28. The landlord apologised for its lack of a “comprehensive response to your Local Resolution complaint,” and for its delays to the review process and confirmed it was upholding the resident’s complaint. It subsequently awarded compensation of £115 for “delayed repairs,” £100 for “time and trouble,” and £50 for the “level of service in relation to the handling of your complaint.”
  29. The resident replied on the same date and advised that she was not satisfied with the landlord’s response. She queried what she should do regarding the neighbour’s overgrown tree given that they had not maintained it. She advised that the skylight problem was persisting and that she had not received an apology from the contractor for the behaviour of its staff. She further advised that she had requested the compensation forms on a number of occasions, but this had not been addressed in the response. Regarding the HHSRS, the resident advised she considered it to be a “legal requirement.” The resident also expressed concern that the landlord’s response did not adequately explain why the kitchen refurbishment was not completed, or when the landlord planned to complete it. Regarding the various repair issues, she advised that the issues all persisted. On 12 May 2020, the resident requested the landlord provide a response to her comments. It is not evident that the landlord has responded to this request.
  30. On 15 May 2020, the resident advised that the ASB issues were continuing. On 5 June 2020, the resident requested the landlord advise her of what steps it was taking to address the continued ASB. The landlord replied on 19 June 2020 and advised that the neighbour had agreed to clear the graffiti and had provided photographic evidence showing this had been done. Regarding the bench, the landlord advised that “this is on her side of the garden and whilst it may look shabby it is not junk and it is a bench she utilises whilst in the garden.” It further advised it had again warned the neighbour to “be mindful of the way she operates in her property as living noise can travel and effect other neighbours when they have hard flooring.” It offered the resident the option to again install the noise monitoring equipment and to continue to keep diary entries of any excessive noise. It also again raised the option of mediation.

Assessment and findings

ASB

  1. ASB case management is a crucial aspect of a landlord’s service delivery. Effective use of a robust ASB procedure enables the landlord to identify appropriate steps to resolve potential areas of conflict, improve landlord/tenant relationships, and improve the experience of tenants residing in their homes. Retaining accurate records also provides transparency to the decision-making process and an audit trail after the event.
  2. Cases where there is a history of ASB over an extended period, such as this, are often the most challenging for a landlord to manage. In practice, the options available to a landlord to resolve a case may not extend to the resident’s preferred outcome and it therefore becomes difficult to manage a resident’s expectations. In such instances, closely following the ASB procedure ensures that the landlord can progress the case to a resolution, even if that resolution is not the outcome requested by the resident.
  3. Following the resident’s reports on 26 December 2017 of ongoing noise nuisance from her neighbour, it was appropriate that the landlord arranged for its tenancy enforcement officer to attend the property to witness the noise first–hand. Additionally, following the order made by this service on 15 December 2017, it was appropriate that the landlord arranged for sound monitoring equipment to be installed on 24 January 2018.
  4. Following the landlord’s visit and subsequent results of the noise monitoring equipment which failed to detect any excessive noise, the resident expressed concern that the neighbours had overheard the installation. While it is not evident that this was the reason why no noise was detected, it was appropriate that the landlord agreed to reinstall the noise monitoring equipment, especially given that the resident had continued to report that excessive noise was occurring. During the second period of installation of the sound monitoring equipment, the resident reported difficulties in operating the equipment. She further reported that her neighbours had been on holiday during the second period of installation. It was therefore appropriate that the landlord agreed to install the equipment for a third time following the resident’s continued reports of ASB on 15 May 2020.
  5. The landlord’s ASB policy notes the landlord can use a number of methods to deal with ASB. On 8, 22, and 30 January 2018, the resident requested the landlord advise her of what steps it could take should the noise monitoring equipment demonstrate excessive noise. The landlord advised following the initial request that it would “identify any appropriate further action” during its meeting with the resident, however, it is not evident that it did so, nor is it evident that the landlord responded to the resident’s subsequent requests. While the Ombudsman appreciates that further consideration as to what steps were appropriate may only have been possible following the results of the noise monitoring equipment installation, it would have been helpful for the resident had the landlord articulated this, or otherwise set out its position, which it did not do in this instance. Additionally, as the resident had provided the landlord with recordings she had made using her personal mobile phone, it would have been appropriate for the landlord to comment on the recordings, which it did not do in this instance.
  6. Following the resident’s reports in 20 November 2018 of animal waste at the entrance to the property, it is not evident that the landlord initially responded, which would have been frustrating for the resident. It was appropriate, however, that the landlord addressed the reports of animal waste in its stage two response, and it was reasonable that it advised that, based on the evidence it had received, the allegations could not be proven. It would have been helpful for the resident however, for the landlord to have also advised what evidence would be required for it to take further action, which it did not do in this instance.
  7. Following the resident’s reports on 31 January 2018 and again on 3 February 2018 of ongoing excessive cigarette smoke entering her property, it was appropriate that the landlord advised her of the works it had completed to the neighbour’s property to address the issue. Following the resident’s request on 20 September 2018 for the landlord to advise of the further steps it could take regarding the cigarette smoke, it is not evident the landlord replied, which would have been helpful for the resident to understand her options.
  8. The resident subsequently requested the landlord carry out an HHSRS regarding the cigarette smoke entering her property. Based on the information available at shelter.org.uk, it is the Ombudsman’s understanding that the statutory hazards that relate to this duty, however, explicitly excludes “smoke from cigarette or pipe smoking.” Furthermore it is not possible for a local authority to enforce the provisions of Part 1 of the Housing Act 2004 against itself and so the HHSRS enforcement provisions are not available to occupiers of local authority housing. This means that local authorities cannot carry out inspections using the HHSRS for their own properties.

 

  1. For this reason, the landlord was not required to complete an HHSRS. It was therefore reasonable that the landlord, in its stage two response, advised the resident that it would not carry out an HHSRS, and it was appropriate that it apologised that it did not make that clear earlier. It would have been appropriate, however, for it to have provided more information regarding its decision not to carry out an HHSRS and why it was not required to do so, with reference to the relevant legislation, which it did not do in this instance.
  2. The landlord’s ASB policy allows for it to also use legal remedies, however, the Ombudsman understands that a high standard of evidence is required for a landlord to pursue a legal remedy to ASB. It was therefore reasonable that following the resident’s expression of dissatisfaction that the landlord requested she make further noise diary entries, it advised that it “needed as much evidence as possible” to take further action. It was also reasonable that the landlord requested the resident continue to do so in its communication following its stage two response.
  3. Following the resident’s request that the landlord write to her neighbour regarding the bench and graffiti, it was appropriate the landlord gave the neighbour deadlines to remove them. It was also appropriate that the landlord followed up with the resident that the graffiti had been removed and that it gave an explanation as to why the bench was allowed to remain.
  4. The landlord’s repair policy does not mention it has a responsibility to install acoustic soundproofing to a resident’s property. In general, installation of acoustic soundproofing would be considered to be an improvement to a property rather than a repair and a landlord is not obliged to carry out this type of work. Nor does the landlord’s ASB policy list that as an option to tackle noise nuisance ASB. It was therefore reasonable for the landlord to advise in its stage two response that it was unable to install any acoustic soundproofing.
  5. The landlord’s position in its stage two response that it would continue to liaise with the resident regarding an ongoing approach to tackle the ASB was reasonable and appropriate, and it is evident that it has continued to offer further installation of the sound monitoring equipment, as well as offer further mediation following its stage two response.

Staff conduct

  1. The landlord’s complaints policy notes that it considers instances where a resident is “dissatisfied with our standard of service or the service provided by one of our contractors” to be a complaint. The complaints policy also notes that the landlord will aim to resolve complaints “straight away” by early resolution. Following the resident’s reports that its contractor’s staff had been “aggressive and abusive,” it is not evident that the landlord followed up this complaint.
  2. Experiencing such behaviour, especially within the home, would be distressing for a resident and the Ombudsman would expect a landlord to make reasonable investigations into such a complaint. While the landlord advised it understood that its contractor would have “arranged contacts,” it is not evident that the landlord made enquiries to ensure this had occurred. It was, however, appropriate that the landlord offered an apology for its contractor’s staff’s conduct in its stage two response, which the Ombudsman considers a reasonable response to the complaint.

Missed appointments

  1. The landlord’s compensation policy notes that it will award compensation for missed appointments in the amount of £20. Following the resident’s reports on 10 September 2018 that an appointment had been missed and that no subsequent appointment was booked, it is not evident that the landlord advised its position as to whether any compensation was payable. Nor is it evident that the landlord offered an explanation for the missed appointment. The landlord has provided this service with a copy of its repair logs which note that the repair appointment was “cancelled.” The logs do not provide any detailed notes as to why. While it was appropriate that the landlord subsequently arranged for its surveyor to contact the resident to rearrange the works, the Ombudsman considers it best practice for a landlord in the first instance to offer an apology and an explanation, as well as set out its position on any compensation as per its compensation policy, which the landlord did not do in this case.
  2. As noted above, the landlord’s complaints policy notes that it considers instances where a resident is “dissatisfied with our standard of service or the service provided by one of our contractors” to be a complaint, and that the landlord will aim to resolve complaints “straight away” by early resolution. Following a missed appointment on 22 October 2018, the resident formally requested on 12 November 2018 that the landlord pay her compensation. She made a further request for compensation on 13 November 2018 following a further missed appointment and also noted an appointment cancelled with less than 24 hours’ notice on 27 November 2018. The landlord’s repair logs do not note any relevant repair works over this period. Given that the resident had made a complaint regarding the standard of service she had received and specifically requested compensation, the landlord was required to respond in accordance with its complaints policy, which it is not evident it did in this instance. This would have left the resident both distressed and inconvenienced by taking time to prepare for appointments which were not attended, and also uncertain as to her ability to be compensated.
  3. In its stage two response, the landlord listed a number of repair works booked for the property but did not refer to the missed appointment raised by the resident on 10 September 2018 regarding the letter box. Given that the works are referred to in the repair logs provided to this service and the landlord subsequently arranged for its surveyor to carry out those works, it is evident the landlord was aware of the works. It would have been appropriate for it to use its formal response to address the resident’s complaint about this missed appointment and advise its position, which it did not do.
  4. The landlord appropriately addressed the two other missed appointments referred to by the resident and provided her with a claim form. The landlord’s compensation policy notes that compensation as a result of dealing with the landlord’s contractors follow the same guidelines and “should not be delayed by any attempt to seek reimbursement from the contractor.” It would have been appropriate for the landlord, as part of its investigation leading to its formal response, to have made enquiries with its contractor as to whether the contractor’s records indicated there had been missed appointments, which it did not do in this instance.
  5. In the Ombudsman’s opinion, the landlord’s failure to respond appropriately to the resident’s multiple requests for compensation, along with its failure to properly investigate the complaints as part of its formal response, constitutes service failure. It was therefore appropriate that landlord offered an amount of compensation in its stage two response. The landlord’s compensation policy allows for it to offer between £50 to £250 depending on the severity of the time and trouble. The Ombudsman considers that the compensation amount of £100 offered by the landlord is fair and reasonable in the circumstances and is both in accordance with the landlord’s compensation policy, and what the Ombudsman would expect. This amount does not include the compensation additionally owed by the landlord for any missed appointments.

Repair works

  1. While the landlord’s responsive repairs policy sets out timeframes to complete works, it does not give an indication on timeframes to respond to requests for non-urgent repairs. The landlord’s complaints policy notes that initial requests for repairs are not considered complaints. In such instances, the Ombudsman would expect the landlord to respond within a reasonable timeframe. The resident’s initial report on 23 September regarding damp, along with her request for guttering to be cleared, and her report regarding the skylight leaking made on 12 and 14 of October 2018 respectively, were replied to by the landlord on 14 October 2018. In the Ombudsman’s opinion, these were not urgent repairs, and the timeframe of the landlord’s response, along with its request that its surveyor initially assess the problem, were reasonable.
  2. It is evident from the correspondence and repair logs provided to this service that following these requests, repair works were arranged, however, following the incident involving the conduct of the landlord’s contractor’s staff, as well as the missed appointments both referred to above, there was a delay to the works being completed. The resident reported on 13 and 15 November 2018 that the works to the guttering remained outstanding. She further reported on 4 December 2018 that the damp patch and works to the skylight remained incomplete, and also reported her neighbour’s tree required trimming. Additionally, on 21 February 2019, the resident reported that damp patches had occurred on her windowsills. On 10 May 2019, the landlord arranged for its surveyor to attend the property to address the outstanding issues. It is not evident that the landlord provided a response to these issues prior to this or immediately after each request. While non-urgent repairs, the time that the landlord allowed to elapse before arranging for its surveyor to attend was beyond what the Ombudsman would consider reasonable and would have left the resident distressed and inconvenienced and uncertain as to when her repairs would occur.
  3. The resident expressed her disappointment that the landlord was arranging for its surveyor to reinspect existing issues and requested that it book repair works for the issues that it was unnecessary to reinspect. Given the amount of time that had passed since the issues were initially raised, it was reasonable for the landlord to seek to reassess them prior to commencing works.
  4. Regarding the repairs to the skylight, the landlord advised in its stage two response that its repair logs noted the works were completed on 24 August 2018. The repair logs provided to this service note the same. It is evident however, as noted above, that the resident reported to the landlord on 4 December 2018 that the works to the skylight remained incomplete. While it was appropriate that the landlord advised it would arrange for further repairs if the issue persisted, it is evident that there were failings with the landlord’s investigation as part of its stage two response.
  5. Similarly, regarding the damp to the windowsills, the landlord’s stage two response noted that the resident had initially reported the damp on 13 August 2018. It subsequently listed ancillary repair works it had completed to the windows prior to this date but did not readdress the resident’s reports about the damp, nor what it would do to address the reports. In the Ombudsman’s opinion, the landlord has failed to adequately respond to the resident’s complaint, which has left her distressed and inconvenienced and unsure as to the landlord’s position regarding the damp. The landlord’s repair logs provided to this service do not note any works regarding damp on the windowsills following the resident’s report.
  6. The landlord also advised that the repair works to damp on the walls was completed on 6 December 2018, however, no such work is reported in the landlord’s repair logs. Given that it had advised the resident she could report any further issues regarding the skylight for further works, it would have been appropriate for the landlord to make a similar offer regarding the damp to the walls and windowsills, which it did not do in this instance. It was, however, appropriate that the landlord confirmed it would continue to clear the resident’s gutters each time she reported them blocked.
  7. As noted above, it was reasonable for the landlord to request that its surveyor reinspect the property regarding the repairs to the rear windows, however in its stage two response, the landlord noted that following the cancelled appointment in May 2017, the resident “did not confirm a particular date that you found suitable.” The Ombudsman would consider it best practice to follow up after a reasonable time to further arrangements for outstanding works, which the landlord did not do in this instance. It was appropriate, however, that the landlord subsequently requested the resident provide her availability for a further inspection.
  8. The landlord’s repairs policy gives timelines for repairs based on the urgency of the works, the longest being 90 days. In its final response, the landlord noted that the resident had made a number of requests for updates following her report regarding her neighbour’s trees made initially on 1 September 2017. The landlord advised it subsequently visited the property on 22 August 2018, which is far beyond the 90 working day maximum provided for in its repairs policy. The landlord did not address this delay in its formal response, which would have been appropriate.
  9. The landlord advised that during its visit on 22 August 2018, it informed the resident that “it was the tenant’s responsibility to maintain the tree.” The copy of the model tenancy agreement provided to this service confirms the same. This service has not been provided with any repair log notes or correspondence that note this advice was given to the resident, however. Given that the landlord noted that the resident made a further enquiry regarding the trees on 10 September 2018, as well as the enquiry noted above dated 4 December 2018, it is evident that the resident had not understood this advice, and so it would have been appropriate for the landlord to further elaborate, which it had not previously done. It was appropriate, therefore, that the landlord reiterated this advice in its stage two response and further advised the resident she had the right to prune any overhanging branches. It was also appropriate that the landlord advised it would arrange a further inspection regarding any safety implications of the overgrown tree.
  10. Regarding the resident’s discussions with the landlord concerning a refurbishment to her kitchen, it was appropriate that the landlord apologised for its delay in providing a follow up to the discussions. While it advised that its “Major Works team have not been able to carry out the works,” it would also have been appropriate for it to set out a timeline as to when the works would recommence, or to advise why they would not be going ahead, which it did not do in this instance. This service has not been provided with any correspondence relating to the resident’s reports that her electrical goods had been damaged, however, it was appropriate that the landlord provided her with information on how she could make an insurance claim.
  11. In the Ombudsman’s opinion, the landlord’s delays in attending to the multiple repairs, along with its failure to adequately investigate its response to the resident’s reports regarding the repairs constitutes service failure. It was therefore appropriate that landlord offered an amount of compensation in its stage two response. The landlord’s compensation policy does not mention an amount for failing to carry out repairs, however, the Ombudsman considers that the compensation amount of £115 offered by the landlord is fair and reasonable in the circumstances and in line with what the Ombudsman would expect.

Complaints handling

  1. The landlord’s complaints policy notes that a stage one response will be provided within 20 days. The landlord advised the resident it was considering her complaints as a complaint under its internal complaints policy and advised it would provide a response by 19 December 2019. It was therefore appropriate that it apologised for its delay when it subsequently provided its stage one response on 23 December 2019.
  2. In the Ombudsman’s opinion, the landlord’s stage one response was not adequate as the landlord merely noted it was still investigating and would provide a further update within a week. It is not evident that it did so, nor is it evident that it responded to the resident’s request for an update on 4 February 2020. This left the resident unsure of the landlord’s decision and unreasonably delayed her decision to request an escalation.
  3. Following the landlord’s acknowledgement of the resident’s request for an escalation, it advised it would provide its stage two response by 27 April 2020 and advise the resident should it require further time. The landlord subsequently provided its stage two response on 6 May 2020, and it is not evident that any correspondence was sent advising the resident of the delay. It was therefore once again appropriate that it apologised for its delay in its stage two response.
  4. The delays to the landlord’s formal responses under its internal complaint procedure, along with the delays to initial complaints regarding repairs and requests for compensation, together with delays to requests for updates as noted above amount to service failure by the landlord. It was therefore appropriate that the landlord upheld the resident’s complaint in its stage two response and made an offer of compensation. The landlord’s compensation policy does not mention an amount for complaints handling failures, however, the Ombudsman considers that the compensation amount of £50 offered by the landlord is fair and reasonable in the circumstances and in line with what the Ombudsman would expect.

Determination (decision)

  1. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was no maladministration by the landlord in respect of the complaints regarding the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports concerning:
    1. ASB from her neighbour; and
    2. the conduct of its contractor’s staff.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 55(b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, and in the Ombudsman’s opinion, there was reasonable redress offered by the landlord for its service failure in respect of the complaints regarding the landlord’s:
    1. response to the resident’s request for compensation following missed appointments;
    2. response to the resident’s reports about multiple repair works at her property; and
    3. complaints handling.

Reasons

ASB

  1. The landlord appropriately made arrangements for it to attempt to witness the noise first-hand, as well as agreeing to install noise monitoring equipment and offering to install it again.
  2. The landlord appropriately continued to respond to the resident’s reports of ASB, and it was reasonable that it requested the resident to continue to make noise diary entries to assist it to gather evidence to support further action.
  3. Following its stage two response, the landlord has appropriately continued to liaise with the resident about her reports and offer suitable ways of tackling the problem, in line with its ASB policy.
  4. In the Ombudsman’s opinion, it was reasonable for the landlord to refuse the resident’s request that it carry out a HHSRS, and its apology that it had not advised her of its position earlier was appropriate.

 

Staff conduct

  1. While the landlord initially delayed in its response to the resident’s complaints that its contractor’s staff had been rude and aggressive, the landlord appropriately apologised for their conduct in its stage two response.

Missed appointments

  1. The landlord repeatedly failed to acknowledge or address the resident’s requests for compensation following missed appointments. While the landlord appropriately acknowledged the resident’s request in its stage two response and provided her with claim forms, it did not address its position as to whether any compensation was owed. Additionally, it indicated that its contractor would first have to consider the claim, in contravention of its compensation policy, and demonstrating its failure to adequately investigate the complaint.
  2. It was therefore appropriate that the landlord recognised that the resident had experienced distress and inconvenience and accordingly offered compensation for her time and trouble in pursuing her complaint.

Repair works

  1. While the landlord initially responded to the resident’s request for multiple repair works within a reasonable timeframe, it failed to respond following the residents continued reports that the works remained incomplete. Additionally, in its stage two response, the landlord advised its repair logs indicated works were complete, despite having received and responded to multiple communications from the resident that the works remained incomplete that were dated after the completion dates noted in the logs. For a number of the repairs, it failed to subsequently advise the resident she could request further works if the problems persisted.
  2. It was therefore appropriate that the landlord recognised that the resident had experienced distress and inconvenience and accordingly offered compensation for the delays to its repairs.

Complaints handling

  1. The landlord failed to meet the deadlines it advised the resident for it to provide both its stage one and stage two responses. Its stage one response did not address the resident’s complaints and it did not follow up on its promise to provide further information. It was appropriate, therefore, that it upheld the resident’s complaint and apologised accordingly. It was also appropriate that it offered compensation for its service failure that, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, was fair and reasonable in the circumstances.

Recommendations

  1. The landlord to write to the resident within four weeks of the date of this determination and include the following (if it has not done so already):
    1. its position on possible further investigations, separate to a HHSRS investigation, regarding the cigarette smoke entering the resident’s property;
    2. its position, following appropriate investigations into its contractor’s repair logs, on the amount of compensation it considers is owed to the resident for any missed appointments;
    3. a repeat of its request that the resident advise her availability for its surveyor to inspect the property to determine any outstanding repair works; and
    4. a repeat of its offer of compensation in the amount of £265.