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

Nottingham Community Housing Association Limited (202005518)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202005518

Nottingham Community Housing Association Limited

30 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 the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of:
    1. An operative attending the resident’s property without authorisation.
    2. The operative’s conduct.

Background and summary of events

Background

  1. The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord at the property, a one-bedroom flat. The resident is subject to the terms and conditions contained in the tenancy agreement. The landlord is a housing association.
  2. The landlord operates a two-stage complaints policy. The policy requires that the complainant is kept updated throughout the complaints process. If the resident makes a complaint at the first stage, the landlord should respond within 20 working days. If the resident is dissatisfied with the response, the resident can request an independent internal review of the decision and it aims to provide a response within 20 working days.
  3. Under the landlord’s compensation policy, in instances where an official complaint is justified and proven, compensation is payable up to the amount of £1000 by department managers.
  4. Under the landlord’s disciplinary policy and procedure, no formal disciplinary action will be taken against any colleague until the matter has been fully investigated and a disciplinary hearing held.

Summary of Events

  1. It is acknowledged that on 22 February 2018, there was an incident between the resident and an operative of the landlord at the resident’s property. There were conflicting reports on what occurred and the landlord carried out an internal investigation and found that there was not enough evidence to take any further action. A decision was made that in the future the operative would not attend the resident’s property.
  2. On 18 August 2020, the resident contacted the landlord and advised that one of its operatives that was not supposed to attend the property came to perform the annual gas inspection. He stated that he asked why the operative assaulted the resident last time he attended the property and the operative allegedly called the resident inappropriate names and left the property. The operative made counter allegations that the resident had threatened him and refused access to perform the inspection.
  3. On 18 August 2020, the landlord provided the resident with a complaint acknowledgement and advised that it would provide a written response within 20 working days.
  4. On 18 August 2020, the landlord began an investigation into the incident raised by the resident. The landlord acknowledged that its operative was not meant to attend the property and it was advised that works were initially assigned to a different engineer but works had to be moved and re–planned due to unforeseen circumstances and the works were accidentally allocated to the operative.
  5. On 19 August 2019, the landlord spoke with the Heating Team Manager and was advised that it had spoken with the operative about this job, the operative advised that he knew of the previous complaint and was not meant to attend the address. He stated that he did not fully recognise the property and knocked on the door and the resident told him that he could not come in. The operative agreed and walked away with the resident making comments as he left, he advised he got into his van and drove away.
  6. On 30 August 2020, the resident contacted the landlord in relation to the matter and was advised that the operative would no longer attend the resident’s property due to past incidents. The landlord apologised for sending the operative and advised that it had placed a note on the resident’s file and rebooked a different operative to perform the inspection.
  7. On 3 September 2020, the landlord issued the resident with its stage one response and advised the following:
    1. The landlord apologised that the operative was sent to the resident’s property and acknowledged that it had been agreed that this operative was not to attend the property. It advised that due to an administration error the operative was sent to carry out the annual gas service and it offered an apology for its failure.
    2. It advised that it would be looking into the alleged conduct of the operative when it attended the resident’s property, and if required, would take appropriate action.
    3. The landlord noted that a different engineer was sent to carry out the resident’s annual gas service and that access was again denied. It advised that as part of the resident’s tenancy agreement the resident must allow access for essential maintenance. It advised that it may apply to the courts for access to carry out these works and costs may be over £1,000 which would be charged to the resident. It asked the resident to contact it to set up a mutually convenient appointment date.
  8. On 4 September 2020, the landlord’s phone records indicate that the resident contacted it to express his dissatisfaction with its stage one complaint response and asked for his complaint to be reviewed.
  9. On 9 September 2020, the resident contacted the landlord and advised that he only wished to be contacted by the landlord in writing.
  10. On 9 September 2019, the landlord issued the resident with a stage one review request confirmation and advised that it would provide a written response within 20 working days.
  11. On 18 September 2020, the landlord completed the gas check at the property.
  12. On 23 September 2020, the landlord issued the resident with its final response and addressed the following:
    1. It acknowledged that the resident’s request to not have the particular operative sent to his property was not honoured and therefore the operative had been sent again in mistake. It apologised for its failure and assured the resident that steps had been put in place and the failure would not occur again. 
    2. It advised that in relation to the operative’s conduct, as stated in its stage one response, the matter was being assessed as part of an internal investigation.
    3. It responded to the resident’s question as to why it did not interview his 12-year-old daughter and obtain the CCTV from the neighbour whilst investigating his complaint in 2018. It advised that it did not have such powers as police to interview the resident’s young daughter or obtain CCTV from his neighbour. It advised that if there was an alleged assault the resident should have reported the matter to police.

Assessment and findings

An operative attending the resident’s property without authorisation.

  1. It is not disputed that due to an incident in 2018 a decision was made that the individual operative would not attend the resident’s property. It is also not disputed that the operative attended the resident’s property on 18 August 2020 to perform the annual gas inspection in breach of that agreement. The landlord appropriately apologised to the resident for the mistake and advised that it occurred due to an administration error. The landlord took a resolution focused approach and advised that a note would be put on the resident’s file to avoid the operative attending in the future.
  2. It is clear from the documentation provided that the operative’s attendance caused the resident significant distress, and the landlord should have taken appropriate steps to ensure that he did not attend the property. Whilst it was appropriate that the landlord apologised and offered an explanation to the resident, the Ombudsman does not consider this to have been sufficient redress to recognise the overall impact on the resident of this error. This is because the landlord failed to offer any compensation for its failure and given the circumstances an amount of £50 would be reasonable to compensate for the distress caused to the resident by the landlord’s failure.

The Operative’s conduct

  1. The Ombudsman’s role is not to establish whether the alleged behaviour did or did not happen, it is to consider whether the actions taken by the landlord put things right and resolved the resident’s complaint satisfactorily in the circumstances. In considering this, the Ombudsman takes into account whether the landlord’s actions were in line with the Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles: be fair, put things right and learn from outcomes.
  2. The landlord performed an internal investigation into the matter in line with its conduct policy and appropriately informed the resident that this was underway in its stage one and two responses. The landlord acted appropriately in investigating the resident’s allegation by taking reasonable steps to discuss the matter with the operative involved and his manager. It was established that there were differing reports of what occurred at the property and it put steps in place to ensure that the operative would not attend the resident’s property.
  3. It is not disputed that the resident felt that a member of the landlord’s staff had been rude to him. However, based on the evidence provided, this Service is satisfied that the landlord took reasonable steps to address the resident’s concerns during the investigation process and that there has been no maladministration by the landlord in respect of its handling of the resident’s concerns related to the operative’s conduct.

Determination (decision)

  1. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was service failure by the landlord in its response to an operative attending the resident’s property without authorisation.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was no maladministration by the landlord in its response to the resident’s reports of the operatives conduct.

Reasons

  1. The landlord acknowledged that its operative attended the resident’s property through an administrative error and appropriately offered an apology to the resident. It advised that it had put systems in place to ensure that the error did not occur again however, the landlord failed to adequately compensate the resident for the distress and inconvenience caused by its acknowledged failure.
  2. The landlord appropriately investigated the resident’s complaints in relation to the operative and based on the evidence provided, this Service is satisfied that the landlord took reasonable steps to address the resident’s complaint.

Orders

  1. The Ombudsman orders the landlord to pay the resident compensation of £50 in recognition of the distress caused to the resident by the operative attending the resident’s property without authorisation.
  2. The landlord is to make this payment to the resident within four weeks and to update this service when payment has been made.