Landlords can now complete the Complaint Handling Code Annual Submissions form. More information is available online.

Great Places Housing Association (202003896)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202003896

Great Places Housing Association

29 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

  1. The complaint is about:
    1. The landlord’s response to the resident’s report of an aerial being installed without her knowledge.
    2. The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of staff conduct.
    3. The landlord’s handling of the installation of a shower and floor coverings.

Jurisdiction

  1. What we can and cannot consider is called the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. This is governed by the Housing Ombudsman Scheme. When a complaint is brought to the Ombudsman, we must consider all the circumstances of the case as there are sometimes reasons why a complaint will not be investigated.
  2. After carefully considering all the evidence, in accordance with paragraph 39(a) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the following aspect of the complaint is outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction:
    1. The landlord’s response to the resident’s report of an aerial being installed without her knowledge.
  3. Paragraph 39(a) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme states that the Ombudsman will not investigate complaints which are made prior to having exhausted a member landlord’s complaints procedure. While it is noted that the resident raised her concerns about the installation of the aerial with the landlord, it was after the end of the landlord’s consideration of the other points of complaint investigated here. Therefore, this aspect of the complaint will not be considered in this investigation. The resident may wish to raise the aerial issue as a formal complaint with the landlord, and return to the Ombudsman if she remains dissatisfied following its final response.

Background and summary of events

  1. The resident is a tenant of the landlord. She is a pet owner.
  2. The Ombudsman would expect a complaint about dissatisfaction with a landlord’s actions or lack of action to be raised within a reasonable time; this would normally be within six months of the matters arising. This is due to the difficulties involved in reliably investigating historical events. Therefore, while some historical information may be included in this report for contextual purposes, this investigation will focus on events from September 2020 onwards, this being six months prior to the resident raising her complaint with the landlord.
  3. The resident had previously expressed dissatisfaction with the conduct of the landlord’s staff on 2 April 2020. It received contact from her on 3 April 2020 asking for the complaint to be suspended “till things return to normal”. The landlord closed this complaint on 26 June 2020. It responded to her on 10 August 2020 about further dissatisfactions she had raised about staff conduct, when it advised her that it had reviewed recordings and correspondence and found no issues. The landlord advised her to seek an occupational therapist referral for a request she had made for a shower to be installed in the property. It acknowledged she had also made a request for carpeting, and informed her that it could not provide this. The landlord signposted her to a local charity or possible funding through an occupational therapist to seek assistance with this.
  4. The resident emailed the landlord on 15 March 2021 to state that she was a vulnerable tenant and did not feel safe in her property. She said she had been “ignored & bullied” and her repeated attempts to get help had been unsuccessful, which had led to her mental health being “extremely compromised”.
  5. Following a response from the landlord, she replied to it on 16 March 2021 to say that she had dealt with a number of staff members previously and had “not had a good relationship with them”. She said that her concerns had been ignored. The landlord replied later that day to acknowledge her concerns and assured her that she would be kept updated on its investigation.  
  6. On 22 March 2021, the resident reported her “grave concerns” to the landlord about two of its staff members in relation to a visit she received from the police on 16 March 2021. She spoke to one of the staff members that day who had advised her that the police visit had been a welfare check. The resident challenged this explanation, explaining that the police officer had “accused” her of a number of matters. She said that she now felt unable to trust the landlord’s staff.
  7. Following a telephone call with the landlord on 23 March 2021, she emailed it on 25 March 2021 to express her concern at being contacted by one of the staff members she had previously mentioned who she felt she could not trust. She asked for another staff member with whom she could correspond. The resident also asked it to confirm that a proposed shower installation on 8 April 2021 was “genuine”.
  8. The landlord responded on 25 March 2021 to acknowledge the resident’s intention to raise a formal complaint about the conduct of a number of staff members. It explained that she had been contacted by one of the staff members she had complained about to make arrangements for the installation of carpets and a shower. The landlord confirmed that it had arranged for the shower installation to be carried out on 8 April 2021. It advised the resident that, once she raised her complaint, one of its complaints team would act as a point of contact so that she would not need to deal with the staff members she had complained about.
  9. On 28 March 2021, the resident submitted her formal complaint to the landlord. She said that she had been bullied by one of its staff members which had led to the police being called to her property “under false pretences” on 16 March 2021. The resident said that the police officer had given the name of one of the staff members as their contact and she felt that this was done to “defame and intimidate” her. She said that another staff member she had dealt with had argued with her and been dishonest.
  10. The resident said that she had asked one of the staff members for help for two weeks regarding her neighbours, but they did nothing and became “increasingly intimidating and aggressive”. She said that the staff member “went out of her way to protect [a neighbour]” who she said she had proof of being a sex offender. The resident relayed that the staff member had spoken to the police and told her this was not true. She said that the staff member was dangerous and caused her anxiety; she stressed that she did not want to be contacted by this staff member.
  11. The landlord attended the property on 8 April 2021 but due to an error, it sent the wrong tradesperson to install the shower. It apologised for this and arranged for the correct tradesperson to attend the following day. On the following day the tradesperson did not complete the work; the landlord’s records noted that this was because the property was a health and safety risk for hygiene reasons. It recorded that there was a strong odour and animal faeces was present “everywhere”, and the tradesperson sustained several insect bites while inside the property.
  12. The landlord issued a stage one complaint response to the resident on 12 April 2021 which confirmed that it had discussed her concerns on 1 April 2021 with her. It noted that her relationship with its staff had deteriorated after “stressful interactions” with them over previous rent arrears. The landlord explained that the recent experience involving the police had been as a result of a report from a neighbour about the resident. When the police had been unable to contact her, they contacted the landlord, who advised that it had concerns over her welfare stemming from the content of her recent contact with it.
  13. The landlord acknowledged that the resident had a “different view of events” to itself and the police, but it asserted that it did not contact the police in the first instance and that it acted responsibly in voicing its concern for her welfare. It highlighted that its safeguarding responsibility meant that it was appropriate for it to alert the police to its concerns. The landlord acknowledged that the experience may have been distressing for the resident, however it stressed that it acted in good faith and the incident had highlighted the “poor relationship” between her and itself.
  14. The landlord suggested independent mediation to improve the relationship between itself and the resident, which it would bear the cost of. In the short term, it offered her the option of corresponding with a different member of staff to deal with her housing issues. The landlord also discussed her housing options if she wished to seek alternative accommodation.
  15. The landlord confirmed that it had arranged to install an ‘over the bath’ shower for the resident as a minor adaption to help with bathing in light of a back condition she had reported. This had been scheduled for 8 April 2021, but it had arranged for a plumber to attend when an electrician was needed. The landlord had rescheduled the installation for the following day, but this had not proceeded as the electrician felt the property was in an “unfit state” for them to carry out the work safely due to the presence of faeces and insects in the property. It noted that it had earlier been “concerned to note” that the property did not have carpets, and had previously offered to carpet two rooms of her choice.
  16. The landlord confirmed that it was committed to carrying out the shower installation and the carpeting in the property but that this was dependent on the property being in a reasonable state of cleanliness. It confirmed to her that it was a condition of her tenancy that she keep the property in a clean condition. The landlord asked the resident to contact it once the property was cleaned so that it could arrange for the installation of the shower and the carpet fitting. It offered to support her with arranging for a specialist pest control contractor if she wished.
  17. The resident escalated her complaint to the final stage of the landlord’s complaint procedure on 19 April 2021. She said that her mental health had deteriorated as a result of her “squalid living situation” and its “bullying” approach. The resident expressed incomprehension at the failed installation of the shower by two of its tradespeople and said that she did not believe that it had intended to install the shower or the carpets.
  18. The landlord acknowledged the resident’s request to escalate her complaint later on 21 April 2021 and stressed that its offer to carpet her property and install the shower was genuine, but she needed to “work together” with it to enable the work to be completed successfully. It reasoned that the state of affairs was in neither party’s best interest, and asked if there was third party who could act as an intermediary to help progress matters.
  19. The landlord issued its final response to the resident on 18 May 2021. It said that its review of the stage one complaint found nothing further it could do to resolve the complaint beyond the measures it had already offered. It reiterated that it was committed to providing carpeting in two rooms of the property and installing a shower once the property was in a clean enough condition for its tradespeople to attend. The landlord re-offered alternative contact arrangements so that the resident did not need to interact with the staff members she had complained about and again proposed mediation to improve the landlord tenant relationship between them. 

Assessment and findings

Policies and procedures

  1. The landlord’s tenancy agreement with the resident confirms that she is to “keep the internal decoration of the Premises in a good and clean condition”.
  2. The resident’s pet ownership contract with the landlord confirmed that she agreed to remove and dispose of any pet faeces immediately.
  3. The landlord’s complaint’s policy provides for a two-stage complaints procedure with responses due within 15 working days at both stages of the procedure.
  4. The landlord’s compensation policy states that it does not pay compensation where an issue has caused little or no inconvenience to those affected. This policy also states that it will not pay compensation when a repair has been missed on more than one occasion without notice.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s report of staff conduct

  1. With regard to the staff members’ alleged intimidating behaviour towards the resident, it is not possible for either party to produce evidence which will definitively support their position with regard to the ‘intent’ of the staff members in their interaction with the resident. This is particularly the case as there is no independent third-party evidence of the incident taking place. Feelings of intimidation and vulnerability can be subjective, and the fact that the resident clearly experienced personal discomfort does not automatically mean that the staff members behaved in a way which was unacceptable or unprofessional. As a result, the Ombudsman cannot form a view on whether the staff members’ actions themselves were appropriate. Instead, it is this Service’s role to decide whether the landlord adequately investigated and responded to the complaint, and took proportionate action based on the information available to it.
  2. In response to the resident’s report of having unsatisfactory interactions with the staff members which she complained about, the landlord investigated this by talking to the parties involved to understand the cause of her dissatisfaction. In its stage one complaint response on 12 April 2021, it explained the reasoning behind its decision to notify the police of its concerns for her welfare; and offered mediation to improve the relationship between itself and her. It also offered her the option of dealing with another staff member as a point of contact, so that she would not need to interact with those staff she had complained about.
  3. As there was no independent evidence of the staff behaviour which the resident had reported, the landlord responded reasonably by offering her the above options to resolve the complaint. These proposals took into account her reports of its interactions with her impacting on her mental health by providing her with an alternative channel of communication. The landlord also offered a means to address and resolve the conflicts the resident reported through mediation. This was offered in excess of its obligations to her and was therefore a reasonable proposal. There was no evidence of a failure on the part of the landlord.

The landlord’s handling of the installation of a shower and floor coverings

  1. There is no obligation on a landlord to provide facilities or items in a property which did not form part of the original property at the time of the commencement of the tenancy. It has an obligation to repair and maintain the installations provided in the property, but it has no obligation to carry out any improvements.
  2. The landlord previously, on 10 August 2020, advised the resident that it could only install a shower on the recommendation from an occupational therapist. There was no evidence that such a recommendation was obtained. It is also the resident’s responsibility to install floor coverings in the property. The landlord’s offer therefore to provide both a shower and carpeting to two rooms in the property was made in excess of its obligation to her. That it offered to provide these items to the resident indicated that it took her circumstances into account and sought to improve her living situation. This, therefore, was a reasonable offer from the landlord.
  3. That the landlord did not install the shower on its visit on 9 April 2021 was not a failing on its part. As confirmed by the tenancy agreement and the pet ownership contract between the resident and itself, she was obliged to keep the property in a reasonable state of cleanliness and clean up immediately any fouling left by her pets. A landlord has both a responsibility to its staff as well as the resident, and it was reasonable for it to request that the property was a safe and hygienic environment for its to staff to operate in before carrying out any work.
  4. It is noted that the landlord has maintained that it is committed to providing the shower and carpeting to the resident, and that it offered to support her in seeking the service of a pest control contractor to help with the cleaning of the property. There was no evidence of a failure on the part of the landlord, other than when it dispatched the wrong tradesperson to the appointment on 8 April 2021. It acknowledged and apologised for this error, which was rectified promptly by it sending the correct tradesperson the following day. As there was no evidence of any significant detriment, its apology for the error was reasonable.
  5. The landlord therefore handled the installation of the resident’s shower and carpeting reasonably, as it offered both in excess of its obligations and that it continued to keep this offer open to her once she fulfils her tenancy obligation to keep the property clean.

Determination (decision)

  1. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration by the landlord in:
    1. Its response to the resident’s reports of staff conduct.
    2. Its handling of the installation of a shower and floor coverings.

Reasons

  1. The landlord investigated the resident’s concerns and proposed reasonable resolutions, which took into account her circumstances, to address her concerns.
  2. The landlord offered to provide a shower and floor coverings in excess of its obligations and was reasonable in asking for the property to be cleaned before commencing work.