Anchor Hanover Group (202101483)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202101483

Anchor Hanover Group

9 September 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

The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of repairs to resolve a buzzing noise coming from the electric cupboard/meter at the resident’s property.

Background and summary of events

Background

The resident occupies a ground floor flat under an assured tenancy agreement with the landlord. He states that in or around February 2021 the landlord noticed a buzzing noise coming from his property which he is used to, and which does not bother him.

However, the landlord arranged for its contractor’s operative to attend the property to check the electric cupboard/meter. This meant the resident needed to ensure he was home at the time of the appointment to facilitate entry to his property. He also needed prior warning so that he had time to clear an area in his kitchen to enable the cupboard/meter to be accessed.

The resident states the landlord organised the repair without first telling him that it was going to take this action and that once he was advised of the appointment, the operative failed to attend. Before the repair could be actioned, the resident cancelled the job as he was unconcerned about the issue.

Summary of Events

On 19 February 2021 the landlord’s contractor confirmed to it that its operative would attend the resident’s property on 4 March 2021 to investigate the buzzing noise.

On 3 March 2021 the landlord’s contractor emailed it again noting that its operative was due to attend the building the resident’s flat is situated in that day, but stating the attendance was to deal with “communal bulbs”. However, an emergency had arisen, and the operative was required elsewhere. The landlord was asked if the appointment could be rescheduled for 10 March 2021.

Also, on 3 March 2021 the resident complained to the landlord. He stated that the landlord’s contractor was meant to be attending his property to address the buzzing noise to his meter that day, but he had received a telephone call advising him that the job had been cancelled a week earlier. The resident was unhappy that he had not been advised of this sooner as he had waited all day. He also reported that this call contradicted what he had been told that morning by the landlord’s staff member, namely that the operative would be coming to his property that day.

The landlord’s internal record relating to the appointment on 4 March 2021 notes that the resident had now cancelled the repair.

On 11 March 2021 the landlord’s staff member noted they had now spoken to the resident and explained that the landlord had only found out from its contractor that the visit had been cancelled at the same time that the resident did – so it could not have given him more warning of the cancellation. The resident was recorded as being satisfied with the explanation and for the complaint to be closed.

However, on 18 March 2021 the landlord’s internal records show the resident had been in touch with it several times stating he wished to pursue his complaint.

On 26 March 2021 the landlord spoke to the resident by telephone and advised him of its response to his complaint. What it told him is not documented as its internal note records that the resident declined a letter confirming the position and that he asked for the complaint to be escalated to the next stage of the landlord’s complaints procedure instead.

However, the landlord noted that the reason the resident gave for the escalation request was that he had been told by the landlord the appointment was cancelled due to an emergency taking priority. The resident was unconvinced by this explanation because he reported having been told the appointment had been cancelled a week beforehand. Accordingly, he wanted to know how the emergency was known about so far in advance.

On 15 April 2021 the landlord wrote to the resident with its response under stage two of its complaints procedure. It understood the resident’s complaint related to the fact its contractor had not attended his property on the day this was booked to take place.

The landlord stated its understanding was that two attempts had been made to attend the resident’s property but that emergency jobs then arose which required both operatives to be elsewhere instead. It confirmed that an emergency would take priority over a booked routine repair.

It noted the resident had now cancelled the matter and explained that he would need to contact the landlord’s estate manager if he wished to proceed with it after all. In the meantime, it apologised for the resident’s inconvenience and confirmed his feedback had been fully considered. It confirmed that this response concluded its complaints process.

The resident has informed this Service that as far as he is aware, the landlord only made one attempt to attend his property, not two. He considers the landlord’s communication regarding the repair was poor and that its actions caused him inconvenience for which he should be compensated.

Agreements, policies and procedures

The landlord operates a Complaints and Compliments Policy detailing its procedure for dealing with complaints. It states that once a complaint is made, it will contact the resident to discuss it within two working days. If that initial attempt to solve it informally is not successful, the landlord commits to carrying out an investigation and providing a response within 14 calendar days thereafter.

In the event that the resident remains dissatisfied, the policy states the complaint can be escalated for review with a timescale to conclusion of a further 14 calendar days.

The landlord operates a Compensation Policy which sets out the circumstances in which it will consider paying compensation to its residents. It states that a discretionary award can be made where there have been failures in its service. It states the amount of compensation should be assessed having regard to the length of time the failure carried on for; the frequency and severity of it; and the impact on the resident. No examples of the amounts of compensation to be awarded are included in the policy.

Assessment and findings

The resident’s concerns centre around the quality of communication he received from the landlord regarding its attempts to investigate the buzzing noise coming from his electricity supply. The resident had not reported the issue as he was not concerned about it.

There is no evidence that the landlord advised the resident of its concerns upon noting the noise or that it was planning a repair visit to the property – although he clearly became aware of the situation once the landlord had organised a repair. In the Ombudsman’s view, the evidence demonstrates there was some confusion as to whether the appointment was meant to take place on 3 March 2021 or the following day, 4 March. The email exchanges set out at paragraphs 5 and 6 above, suggest the landlord’s contractor was due to attend on 4 March 2021 for the noise but had another issue to attend to the day before with the communal lighting in the building.

The evidence shows the resident was under the impression the appointment on 3 March 2021 was for him and not the communal issue (if, indeed, he knew about that), and the landlord’s staff member had specifically confirmed to him that morning that his appointment would be happening that day.

To add to the confusion the resident states he received a telephone call from the landlord’s contractor on 3 March 2021 stating ‘the appointment’ had been cancelled a week earlier. There is no evidence of the resident being informed of this at the time, and whilst there is also no evidence of the telephone call and/or the cancellation itself, the landlord has not challenged the resident’s version of events. It was not clear as to whether the landlord’s contractor was cancelling the appointment for the following day (4 March 2021) – in which case it gave notice – or whether it was cancelling the one for that day – in which case no notice was given.

Indeed, the confusion is demonstrated further by the fact the landlord, in its complaint response, referred to two failed visits taking place due to emergency priorities – rather than just the one on 3 March 2021. In addition, it is noted that in an internal email dated 11 March 2021 one of the landlord’s staff commented to another that “We are having lots of issues with (the contractor) at the minute not coming out when they said they would”.

The landlord holds overall responsibility for the service offered to the resident by both itself and its contractor and in the Ombudsman’s view the resident reasonably reports being confused by the landlord’s communications.

It is noted that this issue then carried on into the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint. Its records suggest he was satisfied with the outcome of an initial informal contact with him, and then that he was not. It did not address the point made by the resident in his escalation request querying how it managed to have advance notice of emergencies. Neither did the landlord explain its position on whether the appointment had been cancelled with a week’s notice, and why it had not advised the resident of this. Further, its complaint responses were delayed at both stages of the complaints procedure, albeit by a few days each time.

Overall, the service offered to the resident by the landlord fell below the standard he was reasonably entitled to receive because of ongoing poor communication.

The landlord apologised for the situation, but it did not offer any compensation for the resident’s time and trouble in dealing with the matter or the inconvenience caused to him. Fortunately, this took place over a short period of time and was limited to a failed appointment and the resident’s time and trouble in pursuing an explanation.

The landlord might reasonably have been expected to offer some compensation to recognise the impact on the resident of its actions. An order will be made for the landlord to pay compensation to the resident of £50.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was a service failure by the landlord in respect of its handling of repairs to resolve a buzzing noise coming from the electric cupboard/meter at the resident’s property.

Reasons

The resident has complained about poor communication from the landlord in respect of this repair and the evidence demonstrates confusion and contradictory information being given. The resident had to wait in his property to facilitate a repair visit that was not taking place. He was inconvenienced and put to the trouble of sorting the matter out. However, this was not a serious failing and the impact upon him was short lived and modest.

Orders and/or Recommendations

Orders

The landlord to pay compensation to the resident of £50 in recognition of the impact upon him of its service failing.

The landlord should contact this Service within four weeks to confirm that it has complied with the above order.