The new improved webform is online now! Residents and representatives can access the form online today.

Prospect Housing Limited (201811550)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 201811550

Prospect Housing Limited

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 resident complains about:
    1. The level of compensation offered by the licensor in relation to a burglary at the property in 2017.
    2. How the licensor handled reports about the adequacy of the heating in the property.

Background and summary of events

  1. The resident previously held a licence of a room (the property) in supported housing for vulnerable adults. He left the property on or around 30 March 2020.
  2. On 2 October 2017, an advice centre wrote to the licensor on behalf of the resident. The letter referred to a burglary at the property on 28 September 2017. It explained that the door had been smashed and had not yet been properly repaired. It said that the resident had various items stolen: £37 in cash; a phone costing £30 and containing £30 credit; a jacket worth £150 and five tops worth £16 each. It also said that the resident was without electricity for three days in June 2017 and he lost the contents of the fridge resulting in loss of over £35. The letter said the resident intended to claim £362.
  3. On 3 January 2019, following contact from the resident, the Ombudsman contacted the licensor in relation a complaint by the resident referring to both the level of compensation offered for clothes stolen from the property; and that the heating was only on during peak hours leaving the property cold.
  4. On 15 January 2019, the licensor wrote to the resident in response to his complaint. In relation to the level of compensation for stolen clothes, the licensor explained this had previously been dealt with through his solicitor from a third–party organisation. It said an offer was made and refused; it was then informed that a claim would be pursued through the small claims court. The licensor said that it had received no further correspondence from the resident or his solicitor therefore the initial offer remained for him to consider. It said it could not progress the issue further until it received further information from the third party acting on his behalf and suggested he contact them.
  5. In relation to the heating at the property, the licensor said that this issue had been addressed several times with the landlord visiting to check the temperature and timer settings. It said the level of heating was felt to be adequate and was in line with normal heating guidelines for a shared property. It said there had been no other complaints about heating from other residents and there had been spot check visits when no issues were identified. The licensor also said that where that had been heating faults, the landlord had dealt with them. An issue was reported on 2 January 2019 and the landlord called out specialist engineers. They were unable to complete the repair until 4 January 2019 which was beyond its 24-hour repair requirement, but this was due to the volume of work meaning a call out visit could not be completed earlier. The licensor also said that the landlord had supplied heaters for the residents as an emergency measure.
  6. The licensor concluded that it and the landlord had taken all reasonable steps to address any heating issues at the property and could take no further action in relation to this complaint, noting that it had previously offered alternative accommodation which was refused.
  7. On 12 June 2019, the licensor wrote to the resident again following further contact from the Ombudsman. It confirmed its previous goodwill offer of £150 in relation to the burglary. It said it had received no further correspondence from his solicitor.
  8. On 1 July 2019, the resident’s representative wrote to the licensor stating that the “damages” incurred by the resident due to the burglary totalled £1,038.50. The representative said they had had to buy extra clothes. The letter said the resident was willing to accept £500 for the stolen clothes.
  9. On 16 July 2019, the licensor wrote to the resident’s representative. In relation to the robbery, the licensor said that it had no evidence of a robbery taking place despite having CCTV cameras within the building. It said it would offer £150 as a gesture of goodwill but could not offer more due to a lack of evidence of the alleged crime.
  10. In response to enquiries from the Ombudsman, the licensor has said that the CCTV footage from the time of the burglary was checked and communication from this time confirms that a man entered the building and left with a TV covered by a sheet. However, the man did not enter the building again and footage did not show any further items being removed. Further, the TV belonged to another resident. The licensor has also informed the Ombudsman that due to staff changes, it has had difficulty in capturing a complete record of the complaint history.
  11. In response to the Ombudsman’s request for repair records relevant to the complaint, the licensor has provided its repair records from 19 December 2018 to 26 February 2020, which include the following entry:
    1. 4 April 2019: No heating in the property repaired same day.
  12. It is unclear if this related to the whole building or one particular room. Other references to heating issues in these records relate to different rooms rather than the property. The licensor has also provided a report labelled “Property Visit Report” dated 19 October 2018, which is described as the first visit. No repair or maintenance issues are noted.
  13. The licensor has also provided Room inspection checklists dated 4 July 2019, 12 September 2019, 7 November 2019, December 2019, and 30 January 2020. No repairs are noted as being required, although there is no specific question relating to the heating in the room. The resident has signed some but not all of these documents.

Assessment and findings

Licence terms and licensor policies

  1. Under clause 7.1 of the terms of the licence, “Subject to clause 7.2, the Licensor is not liable for:
    1. the death of, or injury to, the Licensee or visitors to the Property; or
    2. damage to, or theft of, any possession of the Licensee or the Licensee’s invitees to the property…..”
  2. Under clause 7.2 of the licence, “Nothing in clause 7.1 shall limit or exclude the Licensor’s liability for:
    1. death or personal injury or damage to property caused by negligence on the part of the Licensor or its agents; or
    2. any matter in respect of which it would be unlawful for the Licensor to exclude or restrict liability.”
  3. The licensor has provided a Resident’s Induction form dated 20 January 2017, which, includes a section “Residents are responsible for purchasing their own insurance re personal property”. The boxes entitled “Explained” and “understood” have been ticked and the resident has signed the form.
  4. The licensor has provided its Service level agreement between the licensor and the landlord, which states that:
    1. The landlord undertakes to complete all repairs in line with the licensor’s service standards.
    2. The target dates for responding to day-to-day repairs include:
      1. Emergency same day – attend to and make safe the same day.
      2. Urgent same day – same day.
      3. Urgent 1 day – within one working day.
      4. Urgent 3 days – within three working days.
      5. Routine 14 days – within 13 working days. 
    3. Emergency same day response includes failure of heating system in winter where the property is occupied by a vulnerable resident.
    4. Urgent 1 day response includes no hot water or heating outside winter months.
  5. The licensor’s Resident’s Handbook states that it is responsible for the management and maintenance of the property including dealing with repairs.

Level of compensation offered by the licensor in relation to a burglary at the property in 2017

  1. During the complaints process, the resident requested the licensor pay approximately £1,000 for clothes lost during a burglary.
  2. There are no terms in the licence which state that the licensor is liable for losses following a burglary. Clause 7.2 restricts the licensor from excluding liability for damage to property following negligence by the licensor. However, there is no allegation of negligence by the licensor in the complaint and such a finding would need to be reached by a court rather than the Ombudsman. There is also evidence that the resident was advised that he should purchase insurance for his own personal belongings as part of the induction process. The licensor was not therefore under any specific obligation to reimburse losses following a burglary and it was the resident’s responsibility to insure his personal belongings.
  3. In response to the complaint, the licensor has said that it checked the CCTV footage from the date of the burglary but there was no evidence of the theft of the items alleged by the resident. For this reason, it offered a goodwill payment of £150, not the full £1,000 requested. It was reasonable for the licensor to consider the available evidence and rely on this when deciding whether to offer any compensation to the resident. It was appropriate for the licensor to have required evidence before agreeing to compensate for any losses.
  4. There is no allegation in the complaint correspondence of any shortcoming against the licensor in relation to the circumstances of the burglary. The Ombudsman has not been provided with any evidence to confirm that a failure by the licensor led to the resident’s financial loss. Therefore, it was reasonable for the licensor to refuse to reimburse the resident the full amount claimed.
  5. In conclusion, in the situation where the licensor was not under a specific obligation to reimburse these losses and the licensor appropriately checked its records and considered the evidence available, the Ombudsman is satisfied that the licensor’s complaint response was reasonable. There is no evidence of the licensor acting unreasonably or unfairly in relation to this aspect of the complaint.
  6. The Ombudsman has noted however that the licensor has not been able to provide any contemporaneous records in relation to its investigation into the complaint, such as evidence of its notes of the CCTV footage or evidence of the decision making surrounding his request for compensation. A licensor’s record keeping is a crucial aspect of its overall service delivery. Maintaining accurate and contemporaneous records assist a landlord to provide an efficient and timely service and also provides an audit trail of its decision making after the event. It is therefore of concern that the licensor has not kept adequate records in relation to the subject matter of this aspect of the complaint.

How the licensor handled reports of issues with the heating

  1. In response to the resident’s complaint that the heating in the property was inadequate, the licensor said that it had checked the temperature and timer settings and the level of heating was felt to be adequate. It is acknowledged that the licensor has provided some repair records and inspection reports and there is no reference to any concerns about the adequacy of the heating in the property in these records. However, given that the licensor has acknowledged that this issue was raised by the resident more than once and it said that it had checked the heating, the Ombudsman would expect there to be records of these reports and inspections. It is also noted that the records provided are largely dated after the complaint response of January 2019.
  2. Without contemporaneous evidence of the particular heating issues complained of and evidence of what the licensor did in response, the Ombudsman is unable to confirm whether the licensor appropriately addressed these concerns when they arose and whether its complaint response was in accordance with the evidence it had at the time and, therefore, reasonable.
  3. The licensor’s complaint response included a reasonable explanation for not taking further action in the circumstances, that is, it stated that it had already investigated this issue and found no action was required. However, it is of concern that the licensor has not been able to provide evidence to support this conclusion and to evidence that it did carry out appropriate investigations. In fact, there is no reference to this issue in the evidence available other than the complaint itself.
  4.  Given the importance of a licensor keeping adequate records of repairs reported and completed, the Ombudsman has made a finding in relation to the licensor’s record–keeping practices, as set out below. In making this finding, the Ombudsman has also taken into account that the absence of records has impacted on the investigation the Ombudsman is able to do in relation to this aspect of the complaint and that there were also some records missing relevant to the complaint about the burglary as referred to in paragraph 25 above.

Determination (decision)

  1. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration by the licensor in relation to level of compensation offered by the licensor in relation to a burglary at the property in 2017.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure by the licensor in relation to the how the licensor handled reports of issues with the heating (record keeping).

Reasons

  1. The licensor was not under any specific obligation to reimburse losses following a burglary and it was reasonable for the licensor to have required evidence before agreeing to compensate for any losses resulting from the burglary.
  2. The licensor provided a reasonable explanation for not taking further action in relation to the resident’s concerns about the heating in the property, but the licensor has been unable to provide evidence of the records it relied on when reaching this conclusion. There is no evidence available to confirm how the licensor responded to the resident’s concerns. There was therefore a shortcoming in the licensor’s record keeping, which has prevented the Ombudsman from reaching a conclusion as to whether its complaint response in relation to this complaint was fair and reasonable.

 

Orders

  1. The licensor to apologise to the resident and pay him £150 compensation for the distress and inconvenience caused by its shortcomings in record-keeping (within four weeks of the date of this Order).
  2. The licensor to review its record-keeping practices in relation to both repairs and complaints and take steps to ensure that it is keeping adequate records of its investigations and communications in relation to these issues, including a review of its record-keeping processes and whether any staff training is appropriate. The licensor to report back to the Ombudsman with its conclusions within six weeks of the date of this Order.

Recommendation

  1. The licensor to pay the resident the compensation of £150 it offered previously in relation to the burglary, if it has not already done so (within four weeks of the date of this Recommendation).
  2. The Ombudsman accepts that, because of the present restrictions due to the corona virus pandemic, the timing of the above actions will depend on what is reasonable in the light of Government guidance regarding the health of the resident and of the landlord’s staff.