Tower Hamlets Homes (202209640)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202209640

Tower Hamlets Homes

30 June 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:
   1. The landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about the condition of her windows in the property.
   2. The landlord’s associated complaint handling.

Background

2. The resident was a tenant of the landlord. The property she resided in was a two-bedroomed flat located in a block.
3. The resident made her initial complaint on 20 June 2022 because she was dissatisfied that a window repair, raised in December 2021 and attended to in February 2022, had yet to be resolved. She said that the operative who had attended in February 2022 concluded that there was nothing that could be done to fix the windows due to their age. However, the resident was concerned that all the windows in the property had gaps in them, and she could not afford to pay more to heat the property. She was especially concerned about her children being at risk of cold exposure during the winter months. For clarity, included in the resident’s initial complaint was another aspect regarding the landlord’s handling of repairs to a damaged wall in the property; this, however, did not complete the landlord’s internal complaint procedure (see scope of investigation paragraph below).
4. In the landlord’s stage one complaint response, dated 1 July 2022, it explained that a work order was previously raised regarding the bedroom windows as they were not locking/closing properly. It said that an operative attended on 7 February 2022 and found that the windows in the property already had draught excluders; the job was then closed. However, it confirmed that, as the resident had now reported that there were still gaps in the windows, a new worker order would be scheduled, which included an inspection by a glazing specialist.
5. The landlord upheld the complaint on the basis that the resident had had to pursue the repairs and there were several unproductive visits. The landlord apologised for the delays, inconvenience and time and trouble caused and made a discretionary offer of £150 compensation in recognition of her time and trouble. To be clear, the landlord has confirmed that the £150 compensation originally offered at stage one was for both the handling of the window repairs as well as for its handling of the repairs to the damaged wall, during the period of February 2022 to June 2022.
6. A contractor attended the resident’s property on 19 July 2022, but this was cancelled as the resident was unavailable to provide access. On 27 July 2022 the resident reported that the appointment on 19 July 2022 was booked without notifying her. She said she then received a call to inform her that an inspector or window specialist would be attending the property that day (on 27 July 2022) yet no one showed up.
7. The landlord’s records state that a contractor attended on 4 August 2022 which concluded that more time was required to take out the window in the kitchen, and that not much could be done about the bedroom and living room windows.
8. In the resident’s complaint escalation, dated 8 August 2022, she was happy with the landlord’s response to the damaged wall but remained dissatisfied that, due to the type of windows in the property, the children’s bedroom window and the front room window could not be fixed. She said that the windows allowed a cold draught into the rooms and was concerned about the impact that this would have during the winter months, especially on her children. She reiterated that she could not afford to increase the usage of heating in the property to mitigate the cold and asked how this could be resolved.
9. A further inspection of the windows took place on 24 August 2022.  The resident’s kitchen window was subsequently repaired on 5 September 2022, but the inspection of the other windows (bedroom and living room) did not materialise as scheduled on 6 September 2022. The resident informed the landlord of this on 6 September 2022 via email. The landlord responded on 15 September 2022 and said it would investigate to see why the inspection did not take place.
10. The resident chased a response on 21 September 2022 as she said she had been contacted about an inspection, but the proposed inspection was a telephone c only. She also chased the complaint response as this was due on 20 September 2022, having agreed an extension on 22 August 2022. The landlord replied the same day requesting a further extension to provide the complaint response, so that the telephone inspection, scheduled for 26 September 2022, could take place first. The resident did not agree to a further extension and questioned the efficacy of a telephone inspection. She also raised her further dissatisfaction with the landlord’s lack of clear communication and that the issue was no closer to a resolution.
11. The resident chased the complaint response again on 29 September 2022. On 30 September 2022 the landlord confirmed the complaint response was due on 4 October 2022, as it was awaiting the conclusions of the inspection before it responded.
12. In the landlord’s stage two complaint response, dated 4 October 2022, the landlord upheld the complaint on the basis that there had been delays in completing repairs to the windows in the resident’s property. The landlord acknowledged that a repair to the kitchen window had been completed on 5 September 2022 but the inspection of the rest of the windows had not taken place on 6 September as scheduled. The landlord apologised for this delay and confirmed that the inspection would now take place on 4 October 2022.
13. The aforementioned October appointment concluded that there were two windows that required repairs:
    1. Window to living room requires re-glazing.
    2. Window to the children’s bedroom requires repair due to warping of the bottom rail to the upper sash.
14. The resident brought her complaint to this Service on 14 November 2022 because the window repairs remained outstanding. As a resolution, she wanted the landlord to repair or replace the windows.
15. The resident formally ended the tenancy on 6 March 2023. The resident said the primary reason for moving properties was because she did not want her children to have to go through another cold winter and she did not want to endure what she described as ‘unending repair issues’.
16. An internal landlord email, dated 21 March 2023, confirmed that the window repairs had been raised in October 2022 but, to date, the works had yet to be completed and remained outstanding. The landlord’s records later confirm the works to the windows were completed on 17 April 2023.

Assessment and findings

Scope of Investigation

17. As mentioned above, the resident, as part of her stage one complaint, also raised her dissatisfaction with the landlord’s handling of repairs to a damaged wall in the property. This was not raised as part of the resident’s escalation of the formal complaint because the resident was satisfied with the landlord’s resolution to this particular aspect of her complaint. As this did not complete the landlord’s internal complaint procedure and was not brought forward to this Service for investigation, this report will focus solely on the landlord’s handling of the repairs to the resident’s windows. Any mention of the damaged wall repairs within this report will be for context purposes only.
18. Similarly, the resident has mentioned making previous complaints about the condition of the windows in the property prior to the one made on 20 June 2022. Details of these complaints have not been provided and therefore it is not clear whether these have exhausted the landlord’s complaint procedure. Even so, as these complaints did not form part of this current complaint, these will not be considered as part of this report.

Policies and procedures

19. The landlord’s repairs policy states that it is responsible for the repair and maintenance of the windows in the property. General repairs are split into two main categories, depending upon the urgency of the work. Each category has a target time limit to complete the job:
    1. Emergency 24 hours (2-hour response to make safe and prevent danger if required, with additional works completed within 24 hours).
    2. Normal priority / routine repair (20 working days).
20. It states that routine repairs are those which may cause inconvenience but are not of an urgent nature and do not pose an immediate risk to a resident’s health and safety.
21. In addition, it states that when residents contact the landlord to report a repair, it will agree a mutually convenient appointment to attend and complete the work, and its policy is to keep tenants informed about what is happening, and to do this in a convenient and efficient way, so that it minimises calls from its residents chasing progress reports and updates.
22. The landlord’s redress and compensation policy states that, wherever possible, it should put the complainant in their original position, had the fault not occurred – this could mean restoring the service. There will be times when it is not possible because of the passage of time or events that have occurred to rectify the service; in such circumstances, financial compensation may be the only remaining option. Financial compensation would be appropriate if the landlord has delayed action and that delayed action has caused injustice and/or if there is no practical action which would provide a full and appropriate remedy. Compensation amounts vary and will be determined on the particular facts of the case, which includes, but is not limited to, consideration for time and trouble, distress and inconvenience and lost opportunity. Awards are likely to be in the broad range of £200 to £1,000 for a year – with broadly pro rata amounts for shorter or longer periods.
23. The landlord’s complaints policy aims to use the complaint handling procedure to apologise, accept responsibility, put things right, and use feedback from complaints to improve services. It has a two-stage complaint process, whereby it will aim to respond at each stage within 20 working days. In more complex cases, the landlord may extend the timeline by a further 10 working days.
    1. The landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about the condition of her windows in the property.
24. The landlord was responsible for the repair and maintenance of the windows in the resident’s property, as per its repairs policy. As the windows did not pose an immediate risk to the resident’s health and safety, the repair would fall under a routine repair and should be completed within 20 working days, as stipulated in the landlord’s repairs policy. That said, repairs of this nature may require a number of appointments and may take longer than the stipulated timescales. For instance, a window specialist may be required which may take time to arrange. Thus, an extension in completing window repairs would not necessarily constitute a failing on the landlord’s behalf. Nevertheless, the landlord would still be expected to complete the works within a reasonable timeframe, and keep a resident informed about what was happening, so as to minimise the resident chasing progress reports and updates, as per its policiy.
25. However, in this case, it is not disputed that there were significant delays in completing the window repairs despite the landlord’s attempts at resolving the matter via numerous repairs and inspections over a long period of time. Put simply, having first raised the issue of draughty windows in the property in December 2021, the repairs to fully resolve the matter were not completed until 17 April 2023, approximately 16 months later – which incidentally was over a month after the resident had left the property on 6 March 2023. Moreover, there were instances whereby the landlord’s communication was poor and at others times fell silent, leaving the resident to chase the landlord for updates in relation to the repairs.
26. While it is acknowledged that the landlord has attempted to put things right during its internal complaint procedure, due to its admitted failings, it is the Ombudsman’s opinion that this did not provide adequate redress, in light of the circumstances, to satisfactorily resolve the complaint in accordance with this Service’s Dispute Resolution Principles and the landlord’s redress and compensation policy.
27. It is not disputed by either party that the landlord’s stage one complaint response of 1 July 2022 did put matters right up until that point. It acknowledged that there was a delay in resolving the window repair as the appointment on 7 February 2022 did not provide a permanent solution. Because the work order was then closed shortly after, the landlord missed the opportunity to resolve the matter at the earliest opportunity, and the resident then had to pursue the matter on 20 June 2022, to initiate a move towards a resolution. Nevertheless, the apology and the compensation (£150) offered at this stage did provide proportionate redress which, as discussed, included the failings in the handling of the repairs to the damaged wall. This was a proportionate amount in view of there being no evidence to suggest the resident chased the window repairs in the interim period between February to June 2022 and it would seem that temporary measures were in place to minimise the impact of the draught (draught excluders).
28. In contrast, however, there were a number of failings subsequently that culminated in further unnecessary delays, distress and inconvenience, as well as time and trouble, which were not adequately addressed during the second stage of the landlord’s internal complaint procedure.
29. First and foremost, having re-raised the issue of draughty windows in the property on 20 June 2022, as part of her complaint, the repair should have then been completed by 15 July 2022, in accordance with the landlord’s repairs policy (20 working days). While the landlord’s repair records show that a work order had been raised on 24 June 2022, and contractors did attend the property on 19 July 2022 (after 22 working days), the resident had not been given prior notice of the appointment and consequently the work order had to be cancelled and re-scheduled. As stipulated in its repairs policy, the landlord should have agreed a mutually convenient appointment to attend and do the work, and there is no evidence to support that the landlord did so.
30. Second, when the appointment was then re-scheduled, it is not disputed by the landlord that the subsequent appointment, scheduled for 27 July 2022, was then not adhered to, with the resident waiting all day at the property for the contractor’s arrival to no avail. And though an appointment was re-scheduled and attended shortly after on 4 August 2022, this did not result in a positive outcome as the records detail that more time was required to take out the window in the kitchen and it had concluded that not much could be done about the bedroom and living room windows; this ultimately led to the resident’s formal complaint escalation on 8 August 2022, as this was the same conclusion as that of the February 2022 appointment, with seemingly little progress being made.
31. Third, despite the appointment on 5 September 2022 resulting in the kitchen window being repaired, there was a further missed appointment on 6 September 2022, which had been scheduled to re-inspect the bedroom and living room windows.
32. Fourth, when this inspection was finally undertaken in October 2022, which did in fact challenge the previous conclusions that the two remaining windows could not be repaired, there was a further delay still in scheduling these repairs. As we know, this was a significant delay, with the works being completed approximately six months later on 17 April 2023.
33. Above all, the resident vacated the property on 6 March 2023. To be clear, this Service cannot say for certain whether or not the resident would have left the property regardless. That said, it is likely to have been a motivating factor in her decision, especially if we consider the impact the lack of repairs would have had during the winter months.
34. In view of the above failings, the landlord should have used its internal complaint procedure to fully put matters right by first completing the repairs to resolve the matter in a timely manner; second, by providing a proportionate and fair amount of compensation; and finally, it should have taken the opportunity, in accordance with its complaints policy, to learn from the outcome of the complaint and looked to improve its services.
35. Though the landlord did, in its stage two response of 4 October 2022, apologise as there were delays in arranging inspections for the repairs, when it became clear that, post the stage two complaint response, there were further delays in scheduling the window repairs, this should have warranted consideration for further redress.
36. The landlord’s redress and compensation policy states that, wherever possible, it should put the complainant in their original position, had the fault not occurred; this could mean restoring the service – or in this case completing the necessary repairs to the windows. Being as this was an occasion whereby the resident had left the property before the repair was completed, it was not possible for the landlord to put the resident back to the original position and, therefore, in such circumstances, financial compensation was the only remaining option.
37. And though it is noted that correspondence sent to this Service from the landlord in March 2023 does show that, upon review, it had recognised that further compensation was warranted in light of the continued delays, and it proposed an additional £150 (totalling £300), this should have been offered at an earlier stage. More importantly, there is no indication that this was then offered to the resident subsequently. This will be further discussed in the complaint handling section of the assessment below.
38. Even so, notwithstanding that this should have been considered at a much earlier stage in the complaint process, this did not provide a proportionate amount of compensation in light of the circumstances. If we consider the length of the delay without a resolution from 20 June 2022 to 6 March 2023, the time and trouble the resident spent pursuing the landlord and being available for appointments during this time, the impact that this would likely have on the resident and her family during the winter months (October 2022 to March 2023), this should have warranted an increased compensation amount. Therefore, the landlord is ordered to pay an additional £900 compensation. This has been calculated in accordance with this Service’s remedies guidance (published on our website), where there has been a failure which adversely affected the resident.
39. In summary, while the landlord did recognise some of its failings and attempted to put matters right, its remedies did not go far enough. Furthermore, though the landlord’s initial offer of compensation at stage one of the complaint process was proportionate to the failings identified hitherto 20 June 2022, the landlord failed to provide adequate compensation for the failings identified subsequently. As such, this Service has found an overall finding of maladministration.

Complaint handling

40. Section 4.8 of this Service’s Complaint Handling Code (published on our website) states that a complaint should be resolved at the earliest possible opportunity; this includes any offers of compensation. In this case, while it was important to consider offering additional compensation post the stage one complaint response of 1 July 2022, as there had been additional delays in completing the window repairs, this was not considered at the earliest opportunity.
41. Not only was no compensation offered at stage two of the complaint process on 4 October 2022, it was not until the resident had left the property, and it was clear that the complaint had been brought to this Service for investigation, did the landlord then consider further compensation. This was a failing with the landlord’s complaint handling.
42. The evidence provided shows that the landlord had agreed that an increase in compensation was warranted, but this was only considered in March 2023, after the resident had vacated the property and seemingly only as means to avoid a finding of maladministration rather than as a way to proactively resolve the complaint. What is more, it is not evidently clear that the landlord’s increased offer of compensation was actually offered to the resident.
43. Furthermore, there was a delay in adhering to the timescales denoted in its complaints policy. The landlord’s complaints policy states that it aims to respond at each stage within 20 working days. As such, having escalated her complaint on 8 August 2022, the stage two response should have been provided before 6 September 2022. In this instance, however, an extension was agreed between both parties, in accordance with its complaints policy which states that, in more complex cases, the landlord may extend the timeline by a further 10 working days.
44. The stage two response, therefore, should have then been provided by 20 September 2022 as agreed, but there was an 11-working-day delay subsequently before this was provided on 4 October 2022, despite the resident chasing a response on 21 and 29 September 2022. This too was a failing by the landlord.
45. In view of the above failings, this Service has made an overall finding of service failure for the landlord’s complaint handling. To put matters right, the landlord is ordered to pay a further £100 compensation which is in accordance with our remedies guidance, where there has been a minor failure by the landlord which had minimal impact and did not significantly affect the overall outcome of the complaint. It is also recommended to review its complaint handling practices and highlight any learning or staff training opportunities.

Determination

46. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord for its response to the resident’s concerns about the condition of her windows in the property.
47. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service by the landlord for its complaint handling.

Orders

48. The landlord is ordered to pay the resident a total of £1000 compensation within four weeks of the date of this report. This is inclusive of the £150 previously offered at stage one, and the additional $150 offered post completion of the complaints procedure, broken down as follows:
    1. £900 for its failings in its handling of the window repairs.
    2. £100 for its complaint handling failure.
49. If the previously offered amounts have already been paid to the resident, the landlord should deduct this from the amount noted above.
50. The landlord is ordered to carry out a case review to identify any lessons that can be learnt from this complaint and implement any changes and/ or staff training as deemed necessary.
51. The landlord should also review its complaint handling practices to identify any lessons that can be learnt and implement any changes and/or staff training which may be needed.
52. The landlord should confirm compliance with the above orders within four weeks of the date of this report.