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

Swindon Borough Council (202208774)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202208774

Swindon Borough Council

8 September 2023

 

Our approach

The Housing Ombudsman’s approach to investigating and determining complaints is to decide what is fair in all the circumstances of the case. This is set out in the Housing Act 1996 and the Housing Ombudsman Scheme (the 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 requests for repairs to windows in the property, as well as the landlord’s response to requests for replacement of the kitchen and bathroom.
  2. The Ombudsman has decided to consider the landlord’s handling of the complaint as part of this investigation.

Background

  1. The resident has been a secure tenant at the property since 2003. The landlord is a local authority.
  2. The resident has complex social needs. The resident had a representative acting on his behalf in his complaint to the landlord. The representative also acts on the resident’s behalf in his complaint to the Ombudsman. Throughout this report the representative and resident will both be referred to as ‘the resident’.
  3. Between August 2021 and September 2021, the resident spoke with the landlord to request works be carried out to the kitchen, bathroom, and windows at the property. The landlord’s surveyor attended the property on 1 October 2021. The surveyor took photographs of the worn components and told the resident that he would be kept informed.
  4. The landlord visited the property on 3 further occasions to take photographs and measurements of the kitchen, bathroom, and windows but the resident did not hear anything from the landlord after that.
  5. On 24 October 2021, the resident made a complaint through the landlord’s complaints portal about the lack of progress and feedback from the landlord.

 

  1. The landlord responded to the complaint by making 2 appointments in November 2021 for a glazer to look at the windows and a carpenter to look at the kitchen and closed the resident’s complaint.
  2. The resident made another complaint about the lack of progress and communication from the landlord 3 months later in February 2022, because repair works had not been carried out. The landlord treated this as a stage 1 complaint.
  3. In its stage 1 response the landlord agreed the components should be replaced but was unable to confirm when works would start. It told the resident that it was awaiting listed building consent to replace 3 windows at the property and that it would carry out temporary repairs to the bathroom and kitchen.
  4. The resident was dissatisfied with this and escalated his complaint to stage 2 of the landlord’s complaint process. In its stage 2 response the landlord apologised for providing its complaint response late and told the resident it would do additional works over and above the works stated in the stage 1 response and the repairs would start in June 2022. It also gave the resident referral rights to the landlord’s internal ‘Tenant Complaints Panel’ should the resident be dissatisfied with its final response.
  5. The resident remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s final response and requested compensation from the landlord for inconvenience and delays. The landlord acknowledged the resident had received an unacceptable level of service, experienced inconvenience, and distress, and offered the resident £400.
  6. The resident remained dissatisfied with the compensation offered by the landlord and escalated the complaint to the Ombudsman.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s handling of the bathroom, kitchen, and window replacement at the property.

  1. The landlord’s maintenance and repairs procedure states “Our repairs team will take no longer than forty working days to complete repairs that are not considered an emergency or urgent.”
  2. Between August and September 2021, the resident had several conversations with the landlord’s neighbourhood team requesting works be carried out to the bathroom, kitchen, and windows of the property. The documents indicate the landlord did not raise any inspection or survey request for the property until the resident telephoned the landlord again on 10 September 2021 to enquire as to the status of the repair requests. The landlord then told the resident to go online and use the repair portals to request a survey of the property.
  3. The landlord’s approach at this stage was not as helpful or customer friendly as it could have been. The landlord appears not to have asked the resident any pertinent questions to identify works needed. Neither did it enquire whether the resident had access to a computer or check that he felt confident in using the portal.
  4. The resident went online as instructed but had difficulty using the portal and contacted the landlord to seek advice. The records indicate the landlord did not respond to the resident’s request for advice, therefore the resident contacted the landlord again by telephone.
  5. The landlord organised a surveyor’s inspection for 1 October 2021. This was 6 weeks after the resident first requested repairs to the property. During the month of October 2021, the records show the resident contacted the landlord by telephone on at least 5 occasions seeking clarity about what was going to happen next, and the purpose of future appointments given that that the surveyor had already attended.
  6. The documents indicate the resident’s request for an update was passed between several staff members with no individual taking responsibility for responding or planning and coordinating the matters.
  7. On 26 November 2021 a carpenter attended unannounced to take measurements of the windows. A planned appointment to carry out temporary repairs to the kitchen on 26 November 2021 was cancelled by the landlord, and the landlord asked the resident to call back in January 2022 where he would be given information about the landlord’s renewals programme.
  8. The landlord’s planned maintenance, major repairs, and improvements procedure states “before starting any work we will write to you to let you know we are coming, visit your home to carry out a survey before deciding what work needs to be done, tell you what work we are going to do, the name of the contractor and the arrangements for carrying out the work”. The unannounced visit by the landlord to take measurements was not in line with its procedure and disregarded the residents written request for appointments to be arranged and managed through the resident’s advocate.
  9. The Ombudsman’s view is that the landlord should not have asked the resident to chase up information on the renewals programme but should have taken responsibility for providing the information to the resident without being chased up.
  10. On 8 January 2022 the resident rang the landlord but was told the renewals programme was not yet available. The landlord said it would contact the resident at the end of January. No evidence has been provided to show the landlord did call the resident as it said it would.
  11. The resident contacted the landlord seeking an update on 14 February 2022. The landlord told the resident it was no further forward with its renewals programme so instead it would carry out some temporary repairs in the bathroom in 8-12 weeks’ time.
  12. The landlord’s change of direction caused the resident frustration and annoyance as the basis of all discussions until that point had been about the renewal of the components. As a result, the resident made a stage 1 complaint.
  13. On 15 March 2022, the landlord provided its stage 1 response (the landlord’s complaint handling has been assessed later in this report). In its stage 1 response, the landlord agreed that all the components were of an age and condition that meant they were eligible for renewal but informed the resident it could not confirm when the renewals programme would begin.
  14. It said it would install a new sink unit in the kitchen, new taps in the bathroom, and some flooring in the bathroom and kitchen within the next 8-12 weeks.
  15. It also told the resident it was awaiting listed building consent to replace the windows. This was incorrect because the documents provided to the Ombudsman show the application to Swindon planning department was submitted on 10 October 2022. This calculates as one year after the landlord’s carpenter first attended the property to take measurements of the windows.
  16. The resident was dissatisfied with the landlord’s response and escalated his complaint to stage 2 of the landlord’s complaint process. In its stage 2 complaint response, the landlord apologised for the delays in starting the work and apologised for the delays in responding to the resident. It said it would carry out repairs over and above those stated in the stage 1 complaint response, and it would begin these on 20 June 2022. This means the first repairs were carried out 8 and a half months after the surveyor first visited the property in October 2021.
  17. This timescale was unacceptable because the landlord’s repairs policy states it will complete non-urgent repairs within 40 days.
  18. After the complaints process was exhausted the landlord decided it would install a new kitchen at the property. The new kitchen was installed in June 2022. It carried out an overhaul of the bathroom and temporary repairs were carried out to the windows on 21 September 2022.
  19. The Ombudsman finds the landlord unreasonably delayed in repairing the components at the property. There was a lack of co-ordination between internal teams that resulted in multiple visits by the landlord’s staff and contractors that did not translate into any repairs being carried out.
  20. The resident was left in limbo and had to spend an unreasonable amount of time and trouble repeatedly chasing the landlord by telephone and email to find out what was happening.
  21. The landlord’s approach caused unacceptable delays for the resident in getting repairs and replacements that were needed. At times, the landlord gave inaccurate information to the resident. During the 8.5 months it took for the landlord to carry out the repairs the resident had to suffer the worn kitchen, bathroom, and windows in the property. The resident advised the Ombudsman the situation was depressing and had a negative impact on the resident’s enjoyment of his home.
  22. The Ombudsman finds the landlord unreasonably delayed for a considerable period of time in responding to the repairs requests and failed to meet the service standards stated in its maintenance and repairs procedure.
  23. The Ombudsman finds there was a series of failings that had a detrimental impact on the resident and considers that the redress of £400 offered by the landlord does not reflect the duration and cumulative impact of the issues on the resident.
  24. Having regard to the remedies guidance, the Ombudsman considers the failings identified by this investigation sit at the higher end of remedies available when there is maladministration.
  25. Accordingly, the Ombudsman finds that £1,000 would be an appropriate level of redress for the landlord’s mishandling of repairs to the bathroom and kitchen, and window replacements at the property.

The landlord’s complaint handling

  1. The landlord’s complaint handling policy states “The complaint will initially be handled by a senior member of the Housing Team, and you will usually receive a response in 10 working days”. For stage 2 complaints the landlord’s policy states “We will ask the relevant service director to investigate and provide a response within 20 working days. If the complaint is complex, we may need more than 20 working days to respond”.
  2. The resident made his first complaint in October 2021 through the landlord’s website. The wording of the complaint was very clear in expressing dissatisfaction and frustration with the service the landlord provided, however, the landlord treated the complaint as a request for service. The landlord organised for technical staff to visit the property and then closed the complaint down the following day without the resident’s knowledge. This meant the landlord failed to address the root cause of the resident’s complaint which was about lack of progress and communication on the repairs.
  3. On 18 February 2022, the resident logged another complaint about the same issue through the landlord’s website. The landlord’s complaints portal gave an incorrect response time to the resident leading him to believe the stage 1 response should be provided by the landlord within 25 days. There is no evidence the landlord sought to correct this impression or confirmed the correct complaint response time to the resident.
  4. The landlord should have provided its stage 1 complaint response by no later than 3 March 2022 but did not provide it until 15 March 2022 this was 8 days late. The landlord did not apologise or provide any reason for the lateness of its stage 1 response.
  5. On 27 March 2022, the resident escalated the complaint to stage 2. This meant the landlord should have provided its stage 2 response by no later than 26 April 2022. (This date does not include Good Friday and Easter Monday 2022)
  6. The landlord did not provide a complaint response by the due date, so the resident requested his stage 2 complaint be escalated to the ‘Tenants Complaints Panel’ as described in the landlord’s complaints policy and procedure.
  7. The landlord responded to the resident’s escalation request by stating it had decided the complaint was complex and it needed a further 10 working days to provide its response. The resident disagreed the complaint was of a complex nature and questioned why he was only being informed of this on the day the complaint status became overdue.
  8. The Housing Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code) states at points 5.13 “Landlords must respond to the stage two complaint within 20 working days of the complaint being escalated. Exceptionally, landlords may provide an explanation to the resident containing a clear timeframe for when the response will be received. This should not exceed a further 10 days without good reason”.
  9. Points 5.14 and 5.15 of the Code state “If an extension beyond 10 working days is required to enable the landlord to respond to the complaint fully, this should be agreed by both parties” and  “Where agreement over an extension period cannot be reached, landlords should provide the Housing Ombudsman’s contact details so the resident can challenge the landlord’s plan for responding and/or the proposed timeliness of a landlord’s response”.
  10. The Ombudsman finds the landlord did not give the resident any choice in the matter of the extension and it did not advise him of his right to contact the Ombudsman to challenge its decision. This was unfair, and unreasonable.
  11. In an email to the landlord the resident repeated his request to escalate to the tenants’ complaints panel.The landlord did not respond to the resident’s request but sent an email stating it would provide its stage 2 response on or before the new target date of 12 May 2022.
  12. Accordingly, the landlord provided its stage 2 response on 12 May 2022. In its stage 2 response the landlord acknowledged that its online complaints management systems provided misleading complaint response times but failed to say what it would do to put this right so that it would not happen again. It alsoapologised for the delay in responding to the complaint and apologised for the delays and time it was taking to carry out repairs at the property and stated it would start repair works in June 2022.
  13. The Ombudsman is concerned to find that the landlord’s final stage 2 response issued to the resident on 12 May 2022 did not provide details of how to escalate the matter to the Housing Ombudsman should the resident remain dissatisfied.
  14. The Housing Ombudsman’s updated complaint handling code was published on 9 March and became effective on 1 April 2022. Providing these details has been a mandatory requirement of the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code since 1 April 2022.
  15. The resident was dissatisfied with the landlord’s stage 2 response and on 23 May 2022 again submitted an escalation request through the landlord’s website.
  16. The records provided indicate the landlord did not respond to this request until 15 June 2022, (4.5 weeks later) and stated that due to unexpected circumstances it was no longer possible “for the panel to offer tenants this service”. It was at this stage that the landlord informed him of the right to complain to the Housing Ombudsman Service and provided contact details.
  17. The landlord belatedly informed the resident that it believed the complaint was complex. The Ombudsman has seen no evidence why the landlord considered the complaint to be complex. The complaint concerned repairs to the property and lack of communication from the landlord. This was the resident’s second complaint within 5 months about the issue and the facts of the case were already known to the landlord.
  18. In any event, if the landlord had decided it was complex it would have been appropriate for the landlord to explain why. Providing an explanation to the resident would constitute an open and transparent approach from the landlord that would have reassured the resident that the landlord was taking the matter seriously.
  19. During its complaint investigations at stage 1 and 2 the landlord identified a number of service failures on its part but does not appear to have considered offering the resident compensation as a way of putting things right. In this case the resident had to request compensation after the complaints process was completed.
  20. The landlord’s compensation policy states its ‘Aims and Objectives’ are ‘to provide a high-quality service and recognises that from time-to-time things will go wrong and, in some circumstances, compensation may be appropriate’. In the circumstances it was unreasonable and unfair of the landlord not to consider offering the resident compensation at an earlier stage and within the complaints process.
  21. The landlord’s response to the resident’s request for compensation was to state that the resident had not requested compensation in the original complaint. Therefore, it had not been considered as a resolution and proceeded to log a new service request to deal with the compensation request. This approach was not appropriate, prolonged the complaints process, and caused the resident further inconvenience and unnecessary time and trouble.
  22. The Ombudsman is of the view that it is not necessary for the resident to explicitly request compensation in a complaint. The landlord should consider compensation without being asked, to resolve the issue if it is appropriate in the circumstances.
  23. On 2 September 2022, the landlord considered the resident’s request for compensation and offered £400. The Ombudsman does not consider this amount reflects the cumulative effect of the unacceptable delays and detriment caused by the landlord’s delays in carrying out repairs to the property and its failings in its complaint handling.
  24. This investigation has identified several failures in service in the landlord’s complaint handling that made the complaints process strenuous, and unduly long for the resident.
  25. The resident’s first complaint in October 2021 was incorrectly treated as a service request and closed the following day without the resident’s knowledge.
  26. In the resident’s second complaint of February 2022 about the same issues, the complaints handling portal provided wrong information to the resident about response times. The landlord’s stage 1 and stage 2 complaint responses did not adhere to the complaint response times set out in its policy and procedure.
  27. The landlord’s stage 2 complaint response presented an escalation route that was not available, and it did not inform him of his right to escalate to the Housing Ombudsman Service.
  28. Providing details to residents of how to escalate a complaint to the Housing Ombudsman Service is a mandatory requirement of the Code as set out in sections 2.6, 2.7, and 2.8.
  29. The landlord unreasonably delayed in informing the resident that it believed the complaint was complex and therefore required a 10-day extension. Informing the resident of its position at this late stage and when the complaint response was already overdue was unreasonable and caused the resident disappointment and frustration.
  30. The Ombudsman expects that where a landlord defines a complaint as ‘complex,’ the landlord should identify this at the earliest possible stage in the complaints process and discuss and agree its approach with the resident.
  31. The landlord did not follow best practice as set out in sections 5.14 and 5.15 of the Housing Ombudsman’s Complaint handling code, in respect of its plan to extend its stage 2 complaint response time.
  32. The landlord did not manage and progress the resident’s complaints appropriately, resulting in unacceptable delays during the complaint process which caused annoyance, frustration, and inconvenience for the resident.
  33. The landlord should pay £350 pounds in compensation for its poor complaint handling.
  34. The landlord’s complaint handling did not comply with the landlord’s complaints policy and procedure and at times did not comply with mandatory or best practice containedin the Housing Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code.
  35. Accordingly, there was severe maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of requests for repairs to windows in the property, as well as the landlord’s response to requests for replacement of the kitchen and bathroom.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was severe maladministration in respect of the landlord’s complaint handling.

Orders

  1. The landlord should apologise to the resident for its handling of the repair issues and its poor handling of the complaint.
  2. Within 4 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord should pay the resident a total of £1,350 in compensation comprising:
    1. £1,000 for the unreasonable delays in carrying out repairs to the property.
    2. £350 for its poor complaint handling.
    3. The total compensation ordered is inclusive of the £400 previously offered by the landlord.
  3. Within 4 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord should carry out a self-assessment of its complaints handling processes against the Code and provide this to the Ombudsman.
  4. Within 4 weeks of the date of this report the landlord should ensure that its online complaints handling system, policies and procedures, complaint response templates, documents, and customer facing complaints information and leaflets are compliant with the Housing Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code.