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

Midland Heart Limited (202013704)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202013704

Midland Heart Limited

6 July 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:
    1. The landlord’s handling of repairs to the security light outside the resident’s property.
    2. The landlord’s associated complaint handling.

Background and summary of events

  1. The resident is an Assured tenant of the landlord. The tenancy commenced on 27 April 1998.
  2. The security light is a communal fixture and is stationed on a neighbouring property. It is acknowledged that the resident has been reporting an issue with the security light since June 2019. However, we will not consider complaints that were not brought to the attention of the landlord as a formal complaint within a reasonable period, which would normally be within six months of the matters arising. Therefore, whilst the historical incidents provide contextual background to the current complaint, this assessment focuses on events from April 2020 onward, which is approximately six months prior to the formal complaint being made.
  3. The resident first made the landlord aware that the external security light was not operating correctly on 25 June 2019. An operative attended on 19 July 2019 and replaced the faulty light and reset the controls so that it functioned correctly. Two further reports were made on 14 and 29 August 2019, with the landlord attending on 9 September 2019 and finding no fault with the light on that occasion. The landlord attended again on 1 November 2019, following a further report of a fault on 26 September 2019, and found that the photocell, which controls the light based on the natural light levels, was faulty. This was replaced and the light was left in working order.
  4. On 10 August 2020, an operative attended, following a report by the resident on 27 July 2020 which stated that the light was constantly on. The operative concluded that there was no fault with the light nor the light’s photocell control. A further repair was logged on 26 August 2020 after the resident had again reported that the light was on constantly. An operative attended on 9 October 2020, tested the light, and it was left in working order.
  5. In the landlord’s email, dated 9 October 2020, it confirmed that it had contacted the contractor and asked what could be done about finding a permanent resolution, as it acknowledged there had been numerous appointments to repair the security light since 2019. It confirmed that it would provide an update in due course.
  6. On 9 October 2020, the resident emailed the landlord to assert that the contractors who attended to repair the security light throughout 2019 and 2020 all conclude that the light was working as it should, yet they did not examine the light itself. She asked why a job, that had been raised seven times over a period of a year, had not been resolved. She concluded by requesting a reply to her complaint and for an update regarding the repair.
  7. On 12 November 2020, the landlord confirmed that parts had been ordered to repair the security light and the contractors would make contact with the resident once the parts had arrived. On 13 November 2020, the resident provided the landlord with photographs taken ‘‘over the past few weeks’’ in support of her position that the light was defective and asked how long she could expect to wait for the parts needed to repair the security light.
  8. A further repair was logged on 11 December 2020 as the resident had reported that the light was now not working at all. An operative attended on 15 December 2020, tested the photocell, and found no fault with the operation of the light. An operative attended subsequently on 18 December 2020 and found the light to be off in the day and thus working correctly.
  9. Meanwhile, the resident had raised a formal complaint on 16 December 2020 in which she expressed her dissatisfaction that the repair to the security light was still not complete, despite numerous repair orders being logged. She added that she had provided photographs of the security light being on in the day and thereby defective, as the light should only come on during the night.
  10. There was an email trail between the landlord and the resident on 17 December 2020 in which the landlord acknowledged the resident’s complaint as a ‘‘query’’, advising her that her concern had been forwarded to the repairs team who would provide an update in due course. The resident contested the seriousness in which the landlord had acknowledged her complaint, stating that she expected a formal response by 8 January 2021 from the relevant team, in contrast to her initial complaint, raised in October 2020, which had not been responded to. In the landlord’s subsequent response, it confirmed that her complaint had been escalated to the formal investigation stage and confirmed she would receive a response by 8 January 2021. The landlord asked if she was able to confirm if the light was on all day and, if so, how long had it been like that.
  11. In the landlord’s formal complaint response of 22 December 2020, the landlord partially upheld the complaint due to a delay in attending a repair that was logged on 26 August 2020 and yet not attended until 9 October 2020. In recognition of this service failure, the landlord offered £35.00 compensation.
  12. However, the landlord was unable to uphold the other elements of the complaint relating to the repair of the security light as its records showed that it attended and repaired the light on each occasion it was reported as defective. The landlord concluded by asking the resident to provide further information regarding the times when the light was not operational so it could investigate further.
  13. The resident requested that the complaint be escalated on 11 January 2021, as she contended that an experienced electrician would have identified the issue and repaired the light by now. She said that the light was still defective, despite operatives attending on nine or so occasions previously.
  14. In the landlord’s formal review complaint response of 8 February 2021, the landlord did not uphold the complaint because it had sent numerous different electricians to assess the light who had all reported back that the light was in full working order. Regarding the light being on during the day, the landlord speculated that this could be for a variety of reasons, suggesting that it could be due to the day light being too low, if there was snow, or if other items were blocking the day light getting to the photocell. The landlord requested that the resident keep a record of the times when the light is on in the day and for how long; it said it could then make a further assessment if needed. This concluded the landlord’s complaint process.
  15. According to the landlord’s records, the resident provided the dates and times for when the light was on during the day on 12 February 2021. The landlord said that it had collated this information and cross-referenced this with the corresponding weather for those particular days in order to find the cause of the issue (This Service has not had sight of this).
  16. According to the landlord’s records, on 16 March 2021 the resident reported that the light had not come on for two weeks. Though the worry remained that the issue would resurface, the resident was happy that the issue had been resolved. However, according to the landlord’s records, the resident contacted it on 13 April 2021 to inform it that the light had started to turn on again during daylight hours.
  17. In an email to this Service, dated 15 April 2021, the resident said that the light still came on in the day and therefore the issue remained unresolved.
  18. According to the landlord’s records, an operative attended on 5 May 2021 and repaired the light. Spot checks were subsequently carried out on 11 May 2021, 12 May 2021, and 14 May 2021, which all found the light to be off during the daylight hours.

Assessment and findings

Policies and Procedures

  1. The tenancy agreement states that the landlord is responsible for the repair and maintenance of common parts including electrical lighting.
  2. The landlord’s website stipulates that it will aim to attend non-emergency repairs within 28 days.
  3. The landlord’s Complaints, Comments & Compliments Policy states the landlord has a three-stage complaint process, whereby a first-stage resolution will aim to resolve concerns at the first point of contact. If the concern is such that it must be logged as a formal complaint requiring investigation, then the following will apply:
    1. Where an investigation is required, its target to respond will be 10 working days.
    2. Where a formal review is required, its target to respond will be 20 working days.
  4. Where the timescales above are not possible due to the specifics of the complaint, the landlord will agree an appropriate extension for response with the customer. The landlord will keep the customer informed and will clearly communicate how it will resolve the complaint.

The landlord’s handling of repairs to the security light outside the resident’s property

  1. For the majority of times when the resident reported that the security light was not working correctly, the landlord’s operatives attended within the stipulated timeframe (28 days) for non-emergency repairs. Moreover, on each occasion that the landlord’s operatives attended to repair the security light, they left it in full working order; they also – on occasion and when deemed necessary – carried out spot checks shortly after repairs had been undertaken, to establish that the prior repair had indeed resolved the issue.
  2. On the one occasion that the landlord did not attend within the timeframe, the resident had to wait 43 days for an operative to attend a repair that had been reported on 26 August 2020. The repair was not attended until the 9 October 2020, 15 days over the 28-day timeframe for non-emergency repairs. The landlord did identify this failure in service and provided adequate redress for its failing. The landlord acknowledged this during the complaint process, offered an apology for the delay, and awarded £35.00 compensation in recognition of the inconvenience caused. This is proportionate redress, which is in line with Housing Ombudsman’s remedies guidance, where there has been service failure which had an impact on the complainant but was of short duration and may not have significantly affected the overall outcome for the complainant.
  3. It is, however, acknowledged that the resident disagreed with the contractors’ findings, believing the security light to be defective still, despite the repairs undertaken. When deciding on how best to proceed with the repair, it is reasonable for a landlord to rely on the conclusions of its appropriately qualified staff and contractors. In this case, there was no indication that the repairs conducted did not fully resolve the issue and therefore it was entitled to rely on the contractors’ conclusions, who had deemed that the security light had been successfully repaired. This was reasonable in the circumstances.
  4. That said, the number of reports over a period of time indicated that a permanent solution had not been found, despite the aforementioned repairs conducted. In situations where it would seem like repairs undertaken were only offering short-term solutions, a landlord would therefore be expected to investigate further, carrying out a more thorough investigation in order to find the root cause and thereby a permanent solution.
  5. The landlord first implied this was its plan of action in its correspondence dated 9 October 2020, in which it stated that it had contacted its contractor so that it could source a permanent solution, due to the number of reports made regarding the light over a long period of time. In the circumstances, this was reasonable for the landlord to do so, as it was becoming more and more evident the repairs undertaken were not fully resolving the matter.
  6. However, despite informing the resident – in emails on 9 October 2020 and 12 November 2020 – that it would be contacting the contractor regarding parts required for the light, the evidence shows that it was the resident who was pursuing a response from the landlord rather than the landlord actively informing the resident. For example, having been informed on 9 October 2020 that an update would be provided in due course, and following a further request by the resident on 13 November 2020 for a timeframe in which she could expect the parts to arrive, no clear expectations were ever given by the landlord subsequently.
  7. In fact, it took a further report on 11 December 2020 for an operative to attend again on 15 December 2020, and there was no further mention of a part that was allegedly being sourced by the contractor. This confusion in messaging is likely to have caused further frustration for the resident, especially as it later manifested that the light was indeed not completely fixed. In light of the unclear communication above, this would constitute a service failure and redress should be provided in recognition of this.
  8. Indeed, it was not until the complaint procedure had been exhausted that the landlord then began to conduct a more thorough investigation in order to find the root cause of the problem. The landlord has informed this Service that it had used the information provided by the resident, detailing when the light was on, and contrasted this with the weather for those specific times and days. This investigation concluded that the security light was being triggered by the natural daylight.
  9. Though it would have been helpful if this had been conducted earlier in the process, this would not be considered a failure by the landlord because: one, it relied on the findings of its contractors, who had carried out repairs, left the light in working order, and did not deem there to be a long-term issue; and, two, because there were reasonable assumptions detailed in the landlord’s stage two response that required further investigation, and thereby elimination, to establish the root cause.
  10. Unfortunately, the nature of the repair was such that a trial-and-error approach was deemed necessary, which prolonged the process and caused further distress and inconvenience to the resident whilst the investigation was being conducted. However, there is no evidence to suggest there were any further failures in the way the landlord approached the matter thereafter.
  11. It is noted that the investigation began on 12 February 2021 and seemingly paused following the resident’s report on 16 March 2021, which confirmed that the light was working as it should. It was sensible to pause at this stage, to establish whether the light was fixed allowing a period of time to pass before closing the investigation. This was a reasonable response as it was not until approximately a month later, on 13 April 2021, that a further report was made of the light being defective.
  12. Consequently, the landlord requested that its Electrical Supervisor investigate this further which led to a repair being carried out on 5 May 2021. Following this, spot checks were completed on 11 May 2021, 12 May 2021, and 14 May 2021 that found the light to be off during the day and thus working as it should. This was again a reasonable response following the further report in April 2021, and indicative of its trial-and-error approach and determination to find a resolution to the matter, which has hopefully resulted in a permanent fix.
  13. In short, the Ombudsman agrees that the length of time it has taken the landlord to resolve the issue was not reasonable and recognises the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident. However, the landlord also acknowledges that the landlord sought to carry out a more in-depth investigation which has potentially resolved the issue permanently. Unfortunately, this meant a trial-and-error approach, with the repair taking considerably longer to resolve than the 28-day timeframe for non-emergency repairs. However, despite the identified service failures by the landlord, the delay in finding a permanent resolution could not be attributed to the landlord and therefore no further failures have been identified.
  14. Although the indication is that a permanent repair has resolved the issue, this does not, necessarily mean a lasting solution has necessarily been found. What it does signify however, is the landlord’s willingness to find a long-lasting resolution for the resident, demonstrating that the matter is being taken seriously. In light of this, it is recommended that the landlord continue to monitor the performance of the security light for a period of three months and ensure that the repair completed on the 5 May 2021 was indeed a permanent fix. It is also recommended that the landlord keep the resident informed of the progress of its investigation during this period.

Complaint handling

  1. The resident first referred to the matter regarding the landlord’s response to her reports of a defective security light as a complaint in correspondence dated 9 October 2020. Yet it took a further complaint, made on 16 December 2020, before the landlord acknowledged the matter as a formal complaint. Because there is no indication this was resolved at the first point of contact, as detailed in paragraph 22, nor an extension agreed as per paragraph 23, this would constitute a failure on the landlord’s behalf.
  2. A formal complaint should have been logged on 9 October 2020 and a response should have been provided by 23 October 2020, as per its timescales to respond at the investigation stage, stipulated in paragraph 23. Instead, the resident did not receive the investigation-stage complaint response until 22 December 2020, almost two months later than scheduled.
  3. Furthermore, when the resident made the formal complaint on 16 December 2020, it was initially responded to as a query, which added to the resident’s frustration and conveyed a lack of seriousness in the way in which the landlord was responding to the matter. This was rectified shortly afterward on 17 December 2020, but it was not in accordance with its complaint procedure, because it was clear that this concern was such that it should have been logged as a formal complaint requiring investigation. In light of the above identified failings, the landlord should pay further compensation as redress.

Determination (decision)

  1. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure by the landlord for its handling of repairs to the security light outside the resident’s property.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure by the landlord for its associated complaints handling.

Reasons

  1. Apart from on one occasion, the landlord’s operatives attended within the stipulated timescales to complete a repair, leaving the security light fully operational. On the one occasion that the landlord did not adhere to its timescales, it provided adequate redress to satisfactorily resolve the matter.
  2. Even so, this Service has identified a further failing by the landlord regarding its unclear communication about a part that was allegedly required to find a permanent solution which did not materialise into anything of significance. This was likely to have caused further confusion and inconvenience.
  3. It is acknowledged that the landlord’s operatives attended and carried out the necessary repairs when required, yet these did not provide a long-term solution, as the issue continued to re-emerge following the repairs and thus could only constitute short-term repairs. However, the landlord has subsequently sought to find a permanent solution by conducting a more thorough investigation, which has seemingly resolved the matter. The delays in finding a permanent solution could not be attributed to the landlord and were best attributed to the need for a trial-and-error approach.
  4. Further failures were identified in the landlord’s complaint handling, as the landlord did not adhere to its complaint handling procedure, whereby a formal complaint should have been registered in October 2020 rather than in December 2020, causing an unnecessary delay in the complaints process.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

  1. That within 28 days of the date of this determination the landlord is to pay £100.00 compensation to the resident, calculated as follows:
    1. £50.00 compensation for its poor communication.
    2. £50.00 compensation for its complaints handling.
  2. The landlord is to re-offer the £35.00 compensation offered in recognition of the delay in responding to one of the resident’s reports, if it has not been paid to the resident already.
  3. The landlord is to confirm to this service that its has complied with these orders within 28 days of the date of this determination.

Recommendations

  1. It is recommended that the landlord continue to monitor the performance of the security light for a period of three months and ensure that the repair completed on the 5 May 2021 was indeed a permanent fix. It is also recommended that the landlord keep the resident informed of the progress of its investigation during this period.
  2. Lastly, it is recommended that the landlord carries out further training for its staff regarding complaint handling, to ensure staff members are adhering to the stipulated timeframes in which to provide a complaint response.