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

Nottingham City Homes (201916141)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 201916141

Nottingham City Homes

29 April 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 handling of repairs to the resident‘s property, the resident‘s requests for compensation and the landlord’s handling of the complaint.

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.  After carefully considering all the evidence, in accordance with paragraph 39(o) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the following aspects of the complaint are outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.
  2. Paragraph 39(o) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme states that “The Ombudsman will not investigate complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion seek to raise again matters which the Housing Ombudsman, or any other Ombudsman has already decided upon”.
  3. The landlord commenced a major works programme to the resident’s block and in her property in June 2018. The resident raised a prior formal complaint about the handling of the works on 27 November 2018 which completed the landlord’s complaints procedure on 12 March 2019, with a further response from the landlord’s Tenant Complaint Panel on 9 April 2019.  
  4. The prior complaint which completed the landlord’s complaints procedure on 12 March 2019 was referred to and investigated by the Ombudsman, the determination being sent on 12 March 2020. As the Ombudsman does not reinvestigate matters already decided upon in accordance with paragraph 39(o) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, this investigation has not re-investigated matters considered within the previous Ombudsman investigation, which focused om matters until 12 March 2019. However, reference has been made to prior events to provide the background context to the complaint.

Background and summary of events

  1. On 5 February 2019, the resident reported a gas leak, and her gas supply was subsequently cut off with the gas network company advising the landlord of a “dangerous gas appliance / installation”.  On 27 February 2019 the landlord confirmed that a new district heating system with a heating interface unit (HIU) would be installed on 8 March 2019, to replace the gas heating and hot water system. It is understood that the resident’s gas meter was not removed when the district heating system was installed, leaving her liable for the standing charge.
  2. Following the final complaint response of the previous complaint on 12 March 2019, there was ongoing correspondence between the resident and contractor about completion of outstanding remedial works, some of which were noted in the complaint response of 12 March 2019. The works included works to remedy window draughts in the lounge and bedroom, fitting of new floor tiles supplied by the resident, remedial works to the skirting, installation of a new curtain pole as the landlord had installed different sized windows and laying a carpet.   On 2 April 2019 the resident advised the landlord that some works had been completed but she wanted to raise a “few more issues”.  The landlord subsequently arranged a joint inspection by its staff, the contractor and its Tenant Complaint Panel on 9 April 2019 to identify what further works were required. On 9 April 2019 the Tenant Complaint Panel wrote to the resident recommending a visit by a Project Manager, compensation for distress and inconvenience and that she submit an insurance claim for a rent refund and damage to her property.
  3. On 5 June 2019 the landlord emailed the resident advising it wanted to carry out a further visit to assess works and following an exchange of correspondence the landlord inspected the resident’s property on 18 June 2019 and made an action plan for outstanding works to be completed on 25 and 26 June 2019. 
  4. On 27 June 2019, the resident submitted a liability claim form requesting a rent and service refund, compensation, cleaning costs, cost of lounge tiles, a claim for an increased gas bill caused by the gas leak and the costs of a wardrobe and bed which were damaged during the works.
  5. After meeting with the resident on 3 July 2019 the landlord confirmed that all works were satisfactorily completed except for some minor defects (cracked bathroom tiles, a window restrictor for a lounge window, a window seal to balcony door). It advised that it had rejected a claim for gas charges incurred from the gas leak. The landlord also advised that the contractor’s insurers were considering her liability claim, therefore the resident could add additional items such as the carpet replacement, lounge tile fitting and hallway tiles. After the resident advised she was unhappy with the decision on her gas leak claim, on 15 July 2019 the landlord referred her to an advice centre for help with gas bill debt.
  6. On 16 July 2019 the resident contacted the local authority (which was responsible for dealing with insurance claims against the landlord) to add to her claim.  She attached two quotes for repairs to floor tiles, as the contractor had not carried out the repairs, and a quote for a bedroom carpet.
  7. The resident advised the landlord in June 2019 that she could not close her gas account as there was an outstanding bill and the gas company would not remove the meter without the landlord authorisation, resulting in ongoing standing charges. She has further advised that the landlord then authorised British Gas to remove the meter, without telling her, and that she arranged for British Gas to remove the meter on 24 July 2019.
  8. On 22 August 2019 the contractor wrote to the resident stating its insurers did not consider her claim to be a public liability claim, and that it could not assist further. On 11 September 2019, the resident appealed the contractor’s decision on her insurance claim and also asked the landlord to escalate the matter.
  9. The resident has advised that in texts and emails sent between 7 and 12 August 2019 to the landlord and its contractor she reported damaged seals and missing catchments to lounge and bedroom windows, outstanding disrepair to bathroom tiles and a leaking radiator.
  10. Also, on 11 September 2019 the resident reported a snagging issue – that she could not open her back window fully because of a rendered wall. The contractor in response cut out insulation and re-rendered the wall but on 8 and 9 October 2019 the resident stated the window still did not open fully. On 11 October 2019, the resident raised another issue, stating that a previous reported repair to a leaking drainpipe outside her front door was unresolved.
  11. In response to the resident emailing the landlord about unresolved matters, on 7 October 2019 the landlord advised the resident that her complaint was closed. On 30 October 2019 the landlord informed the resident that the local authority had found no liability regarding her claim about the gas leak.  However, it would pay £124.50 as a goodwill payment. Its internal correspondence indicates that the offer comprised £79.25 to cover the gas bill for October to December 2018 and the standing charge for the period 5 February 2019 to July 2019 totalling £45.25. On 22 January 2020 the resident chased up payment of the landlord’s offer of £124.50 and it is understood that on 29 January 2020 it sent her a cheque.
  12. On 19 March 2020, the resident raised a new formal complaint about the landlord’s handling of repairs after 12 March 2019 and her compensation request. She had been advised to do so by this Service and provided a chronology of events from 14 March 2019 to October 2019.
  13. The landlord, after speaking to the resident on 30 March 2020 about her complaint, sent a response dated 15 April 2020 by post. It noted that the improvement works took longer than anticipated but the increased length of time was communicated by letter, email, text and communal notice board, as well as there being an onsite office. The landlord stated that the contractor had carried out additional works at a cost of £445:
    1. Painted the bathroom ceiling at a cost of £125.
    2. Painted the small bedroom ceiling at a cost of £65.
    3. Painted new plaster to window elevations and installed three curtain rails in the main bedroom at a cost of £90.
    4. Repaired loose and cracked spare tiles in the hallway at as cost of £95. 
    5. Boxed in pipes above the HIU in the kitchen at the resident’s request at cost of £70.
  14. With regards to the resident’s claim that she had used £200 worth of gas due to the gas leak, the landlord noted that it was her responsibility to report the gas leak, which would have been odorous and therefore identifiable, and that it had paid her £124 towards the bill. 
  15. The landlord noted that after 12 March 2019, it had completed additional internal repairs in June 2019 that were reported by the resident, including a cracked tile in the bathroom, a repair to the window restrictor in the lounge window, a repair to the window seal to the balcony door and window, a leaking toilet and a repair to the door entry. 
  16. The landlord in the response of 15 April 2020 also explained that works to the floor tiles, tiling and bedroom carpet were arranged but then halted as the resident had submitted a compensation claim which included these items.  The landlord stated that the local authority had referred the claim to the contractor which on 14 October 2019 offered £200 in full and final settlement (although the resident has indicated to this Service that she did not receive the response and a copy has not been provided to this Service).  The landlord accepted it could have communicated more clearly around the claim.   The landlord further advised that the contractor had increased its offer to £450 as the fitting of the bedroom carpet, tiling works and skirting in the lounge area remained outstanding. 
  17. On 22 April 2020, the resident responded to the landlord’s letter making comments. This included disputing that it had carried out all the works stated in the response of 15 April 2020 and contending that some of the additional works, such as the painting of the bathroom and bedroom ceiling, were in fact part of the major works. The landlord advised that it would aim to respond by 11 May 2020.
  18. On 12 May 2020 the landlord responded to the resident addressing ‘Complaints and Escalation”. In response to concerns raised about the complaint escalation in March 2019 the landlord noted that there were several conversations at that time, and that it had informed the resident who was investigating her complaint as well as the names of the Tenant Complaint Panel member and the Technical Officer involved.  It confirmed that the Tenant Complaint Panel had visited and made recommendations for works. The landlord also clarified that it had closed the resident’s prior complaint as it understood the outstanding matters were resolved or had resolutions in place.
  19. With regards to “Repairs and Inspections”, the landlord confirmed that it did not paint existing ceilings and had painted the parts of the bathroom and bedroom ceiling that it had insulated as goodwill measures.  It was not aware of a lack of painting in the bathroom and would inspect if requested; however, it would not paint the new extension as this was not part of the agreed contract for decoration.   The landlord stated that its site team had texted confirmation of works carried out, including the hallway tiles, which was part of the previous complaint; however, if the works were incomplete or unsafe, it would take further action.  The landlord noted that the contractor had rectified a hole left in the resident’s wall following the installation of the kitchen heating unit within two weeks.  The landlord noted with regards to the resident’s concerns about exposed pipes that the pipework boxing had already been completed, although there may have been some miscommunication around the issue.
  20. The landlord advised that wall tiles in the kitchen had to be removed to ensure that the HIU could be safely secured to the wall, and that it was not its responsibility to maintain or replace ceiling to floor tiles if essential works involved disrupting them.  The landlord stated that its contractor had confirmed that repairs to the cracked bathroom tiles had been carried out, but that it would consider photos of the area to establish if further works were required.  The landlord noted that the contractor had resolved the issue with the back safety window.  The landlord noted that it had already offered compensation for the gas leak and whilst the resident had been left with no hot water and heating for a period in February to March 2019, this issue was addressed in the response of 12 March 2019. 
  21. With regards to the resident’s outstanding queries about “Compensation / Insurance Claim”, the landlord noted that it had agreed to award the resident “Love to Shop” vouchers when the property was surveyed prior to the works because the windows fitted would be of different shape and size and apologised for the delay in providing the vouchers. It advised it could pay £100 to the resident’s bank account instead. The landlord stated that it had asked the contractor to resend any documentation that had been posted about the liability claim but not received by the resident.  

After the complaints procedure

  1. On 20 May 2020 the resident advised this Service that she was unhappy with the response of 12 May 2020, outlining concerns about the handling of the major works and the landlord’s communication.   Amongst the points raised, the resident advised that the landlord should have visited and completed the remedial works in March 2019, she had paid full rent and service charge through the major works and her claim had not been responded to, the landlord had not responded to four emails sent between April and July 2019 about her complaint and the landlord confirmed on 7 October 2019 that her complaint was closed. The resident has also noted that she did not receive all of the documents the landlord had referred to in its responses.
  2. The resident has further disputed that the landlord carried out all the additional works listed in the response of 15 April 2020 and the cost stated.  She has added that it was agreed in January 2019 that she should not be charged the cost of repairs to the hallway tiles. The resident advised the offer of £450 for the carpet fitting, tiling works and skirting was insufficient as the works would cost her at least £996 plus the cost of skirting, and that she would like the landlord to complete the works. The resident has also advised that the back bedroom safety window has not been inspected and that she was unhappy with the outcome to the gas leak issues raised.
  3. On 15 September 2020, this Service contacted the landlord to confirm if the resident had completed the complaints procedure.   On 30 September 2020, the landlord advised the resident that it would escalate the complaint to its Tenant Complaint Panel, but that if she did not want the Panel to review her complaint, then the complaint had completed the complaints procedure. Subsequently, the resident declined the involvement of the Tenant Complaint Panel and this Service accepted that the resident had completed the landlord’s complaints procedure on 12 May 2020.
  4. In further correspondence between November 2020 and 29 January 2021 in which the resident advised that she remained dissatisfied, the landlord proposed to inspect the resident’s property and carry out any outstanding works.  It also offered the resident £1,000, comprised of an increased offer by the contractor of £500 for items damaged during the works and £500 from the landlord in recognition for the length of time taken to deal with the matter. The landlord stated that alternatively, she could make a claim for damages to the local authority if she could provide clear evidence and information.

Assessment and findings

  1. It is not disputed that at the time the resident’s previous complaint completed the landlord’s complaints procedure on 12 March 2019, there were outstanding works.  There was a delay in the completion of the works insofar as the landlord did not seek to confirm and arrange the required works until June 2019. It had previously inspected in April 2019 and it is not clear why the necessary works were not identified and arranged at that time.  This represented a missed opportunity and contributed to the delay.  The landlord also failed to complete some of the agreed works in June 2019, in particular the installation of flooring and skirting, tiling and carpeting. The landlord suggested that the resident instead incorporate these items within an insurance claim, but it is not evident that the landlord explained why this was preferable.
  2. The resident raised several new repairs and snagging issues after the completion of works in June 2019 but there is no evidence of significant delays. The resident has disputed the landlord’s position that it has resolved the issues of the back bedroom window and cracked bathroom tiles, but ultimately the contractor attended, and the landlord was entitled to rely on its expert opinion.
  3. The landlord’s Compensation Policy states that “we will consider discretionary compensation in any case where a customer contacts us and states: We have failed to meet our own service targets (e.g. failed to attend an appointment, carry out a service within the agreed timescale, or keep the customer informed throughout a process)”.
  4. The landlord created an expectation that it would compensate the resident for service failures when it was following up on outstanding works and when Tenant Complaint Panel on 9 April 2019 explicitly recommended compensation for distress and inconvenience. There was further correspondence culminating in the landlord advising on 7 October 2019 that it considered the matter closed.  However, the landlord had focused on the completion of works but not the overall handling of the works and providing redress for service failures.  It thereby failed to take to take into account the full circumstances of the case and find an appropriate resolution, which exacerbated the resident’s frustration. 
  5. The landlord had also invited the resident to make an insurance claim.  It was reasonable that the landlord asked the contractor to consider the claim in the first instance as the resident had attributed damage caused by the contractor. It is understood that the resident was disappointed by the contractor’s insurers denying on 22 August 2019 that it had responsibility for considering the claim; however, it is not within the remit of the Ombudsman to investigate the decision of insurance companies.  The contractor’s insurers having rejected responsibility for the claim, it fell back to the landlord to consider the claim. There is no evidence that it did so at the time, other than responding to the claim for costs incurred by the resident arising from the gas leak.  Some works that had been agreed, specifically flooring and tiling works, were put on hold pending the outcome of the insurance claim.  When the claim was rejected, the landlord did not make clear what further action it would take to resolve these issues, prolonging the delay and exacerbating the distress and inconvenience to the resident. 
  6. It is noted that the landlord in the Stage 1 response made reference to the contractor previously offering £200 to the resident on 14 October 2019.  The resident has indicated to this Service that she did not receive the response and a copy has not been provided to this Service, so it cannot be confirmed this offer was made.   Such an offer by the contractor would be contradictory to its response of 22 August 2019 and unanticipated by the resident.  The fact that the landlord did not make the resident aware of this offer at the time and confirm its position on her claim, even though she had asked it to escalate her claim, indicates a lack of clarity and oversight on the part of the landlord in handling the claim.
  7. With regards to the resident’s claim relating to costs arising from the gas leak, the landlord initially responded, rejecting the claim on 3 July 2019. However, there is no evidence on file indicating that the landlord communicated its reasoning at that point as to why it decided not to offer any monetary compensation, even when the resident challenged the decision.  The landlord evidently reconsidered as it made a goodwill offer of £124.50 on 30 October 2019 which was to the resident’s benefit, but which again indicated a lack of clarity, oversight and consistency in dealing with her claim.
  8. With regards to the offer of £124.50, the landlord’s responsibility is to respond to reports of disrepair to the heating and hot water system, but it is not responsible for a resident’s utility bill.  In this case, it made an offer to cover the resident’s bill for the period prior to her reporting the leak.  This was reasonable as it was not required to make such an offer, nor was it responsible for reporting the gas leak, but the offer nonetheless corresponded with the basis of the resident’s claim.  It should also be noted that the landlord could only be expected to cover the estimated increase in the gas bill compared to same period in previous years, not the bill in full. As such the landlord’s offer of £79.25 was reasonable.  It was also reasonable that the landlord covered the standing charge from February 2019 to July 2019 as the landlord could have arranged for the removal of the gas meter in March 2019 but delayed in doing so.  By covering the further standing charge costs the landlord put the resident in the position she would have been in if the delay had not occurred.  Taken altogether, the landlord’s offer in response to the aspect of the resident’s claim relating to the gas leak was reasonable and sufficient.  However, the landlord was not prompt in making payment only sending a cheque after the resident chased up the payment in January 2020.
  9. As noted above there were aspects of the resident’s claim that the landlord failed to respond to at all causing further distress and inconvenience, and exacerbating her time and trouble in pursuing her complaint. In particular neither the contractor nor the landlord confirmed its position on the resident’s claim for damage to her bed and wardrobe, or for a rent and service charge refund.  The claim for a rent and service charge refund was intrinsically linked to the resident’s complaint about service failures in the handling of the major works and could have been assessed by the landlord as opposed to being referred to its insurers.
  10. After the resident made a formal complaint, the landlord clarified its position on the resident’s claim.  It noted that the contractor had carried out additional works.  Whilst works outside the scope of the major works would constitute redress, the resident has disputed that all the works have been carried out, or that they were additional, as well as the costs stated by the landlord. The landlord has not provided evidence of the works that were completed or the specifications of the major works. The landlord has a responsibility to maintain accurate and robust records of inspections and repairs about what has been reported and actions taken. This is both to effectively manage its own repairs service and to have an audit trail in the event of a dispute or complaint.
  11. Also, the landlord stated the repair of hallway tiles was a goodwill measure.  This was unreasonable as these works were necessary to rectify workmanship issues and were part of making the property good within the major works, as were the other flooring and skirting works.  The landlord also indicated that the contractor would offer £450 towards the outstanding tiling works, flooring and skirting works but did not explain how this offer was arrived.  No reference was made to the information provided by the resident about the costs she would incur if completing the works herself, and as such the landlord did not demonstrate the offer was reasonable.
  12. After the complaints procedure the landlord evidently revisited the complaint, making an offer of £1,000 in January 2021. It advised that the contractor had increased its offer to £500 but again did not explain how this offer was arrived at. The landlord offered £500 compensation for the length of time taken to deal with the matter.  The landlord’s offer is recognised as an attempt to resolve the complaint, but it had earlier opportunities to make the offer and the offer would not have been forthcoming had the resident not expended further time and trouble in pursuing her complaint with it despite completing the complaints procedure.  The advice that the resident could alternatively pursue an insurance claim was not adequately instructive insofar as the resident had already submitted a claim which had been rejected by both the landlord’s and the contractor’s insurers.

 

Complaints Procedure

  1. The landlord’s ‘Compliments, Comments & Complaints’ procedure states it “will investigate the complaint fully” and issue its final response within 15 working days of receipt of the complaint. The complaints procedure also states the following:

“If the customer remains dissatisfied with the resolution provided they will be given the option to discuss the reasons for their dissatisfaction with the Customer Relations Team. The customer will also be advised of their right to refer their complaint to a Designated Person or, after a delay of 8 weeks, to refer their complaint to the Housing Ombudsman.”

  1. The Stage 1 response of 15 April 2020 to the complaint of 19 March 2020 was not sent within the 15-day timeframe.  However, the delay was not unreasonable. As the landlord sought further details on 30 March 2020 it is clear that the landlord was attempting to fully investigate the various concerns raised by the resident.  After the resident expressed dissatisfaction with the response of 15 April 2020, it was in accordance with the policy that the landlord responded further on 12 May 2020.  However, the landlord’s response of 12 May 2020 did not confirm how the resident could proceed with her complaint if she remained dissatisfied.  The response did not make clear that the complaints procedure had been exhausted and that the resident could approach this Service or a designated person.  As such the response did not meet the requirement of the complaints procedure. This failure is compounded as the Ombudsman identified the same failing in the determination of the previous complaint on 12 March 2020.

Determination (decision)

  1. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme the Ombudsman has determined that there was maladministration by the landlord.

Reasons

  1. There was a delay in the completion of the works arising from the previous complaint insofar as the landlord did not seek to confirm and arrange the required works until June 2019. The landlord also failed to complete some of the agreed works in June 2019, in particular the installation of flooring and skirting, tiling and carpeting.
  2. It was unreasonable that the landlord advised the resident on 7 October 2019 that it considered the matter closed as it focussed on the completion of works but not the overall handling of the works and redress for service failures.
  3. The landlord invited the resident to make an insurance claim.  However, there is no evidence that it did so at the time, other than responding to the claim for costs incurred by the resident arising from the gas leak.  Some works that had been agreed, specifically flooring and tiling works, were put on hold pending the outcome of the claim.  When the claim was rejected, the landlord did not make clear what further action it would take to resolve these issues prolonging the delay and exacerbating the distress and inconvenience to the resident.  Generally, there was a lack of clarity, oversight and consistency in the landlord’s handling of the claim.
  4. When responding to the resident’s formal complaint, the landlord also indicated that the contractor would offer £450 towards the outstanding tiling works, flooring, carpeting and skirting works but did not explain how this offer was arrived. The landlord therefore did not demonstrate that this offer, or the contractor’s increased offer of £500 in January 2021 was reasonable.
  5. Generally, the time and trouble that the resident has spent on pursuing her complaint has been more than reasonably expected.  Whilst the landlord has now made an offer of £500, the offer would not have been forthcoming had the resident not expended further time and trouble in pursuing her complaint after completion of the complaints procedure.
  6. With regards to the resident’s complaints handling, the landlord’s response of 12 May 2020 did not confirm how the resident could proceed with her complaint if she remained dissatisfied, as required by its complaints procedure.  This failure is compounded as the Ombudsman identified the same failing in the determination of the previous complaint on 12 March 2020.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

  1. The landlord is to write to the resident to confirm the contractor’s offer. It should make clear how much the offer is and how the offer has been arrived at, including whether the offer has considered the resident’s claim for damage to bedroom furniture.
  2. If the resident rejects the contractor’s offer, the landlord should then arrange completion of outstanding tiling, flooring, carpeting and skirting works, and a prior inspection of the resident’s property, if necessary. It should also make clear how the resident can pursue her claim for damage to her bedroom furniture.
  3. The landlord sends the resident an apology for its handling of her case.
  4. The landlord pays the resident £600 compensation in respect of her distress and inconvenience and time and trouble caused by the failures in its handling of the works at her property, her compensation claim and formal complaint.  (If the landlord has paid the £500 offered in January 2021, this leaves £100 to pay).

Recommendations

  1. The landlord reviews the way that it keeps records on responsive repairs and major works, with a view to ensuring there is audit trail which can be used to inform queries and complaints about the works.
  2. The landlord provides internal guidance for staff and the Tenant Complaint Panel on what claims should properly be considered by the landlord’s insurers and/or the contractor’s insurers.