Mid Devon District Council (202013248)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202013248

Mid Devon District Council

15 December 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 resident’s complaint is about:
1. The conduct, behaviour and comments by landlord staff made to her when visiting her property, with or without prior notice.
2. Window repairs.
3. Bathroom heating.
4. The landlord’s response to damp and mould reports.
5. Repairs to her front path.
6. The front door is not to her agreed specification.
7. Reports of antisocial behaviour (ASB) made against her by a neighbour have not been addressed.
8. The landlord’s complaint handling.

Background and summary of events

Policies and Procedures

The landlord’s Neighbourhood Management Policy states with regards to Neighbourhood Walkabouts:
1. “Tenants, councillors (both district and parish) and other agencies such as the police are welcome to join neighbourhood officers when an estate in their area is inspected to raise any concerns and share ideas for improvement. A schedule of neighbourhood walkabouts is available on our website”.
2. “Neighbourhood walkabouts enable neighbourhood officers to identify issues surrounding the following:
  1. Breaches of tenancy.
  2. Grounds maintenance issues, including hedges, trees and boundaries, grassed/planted areas.
  3. Repairs.
  4. Any health and safety issues; for example, any deterioration to pathways that could be trip hazards.
  5. Communal areas – internal and external.
  6. Car parks and garages.
  7. Security issues, including fencing/ boundaries, security doors.
  8. Tenancy issues, including property condition, property improvements, untidy gardens, pets.
  9. Anti-social behaviour, including graffiti/vandalism, drugs, abandoned cars, fly-tipping”.
The landlord has a two–stage complaints procedure. The complaints procedure states: “Step 1 will be to refer the complaint to the service manager. If the customer is still unhappy with the response, step 2 will result in a further investigation by the service area, Group Manager or a member of Leadership Team”.
The landlord’s Repairs Policy as summarised in the Tenants Handbook states the response times for repairs are:
1. “Emergency – We will respond within four hours.”
2. “Urgent. We will complete within seven working days.”
3. “Routine. We will complete the repair within 28 working days. For work where the fault of failure does not cause inconvenience or present a danger to occupants or the public. We may extend the timescale for certain repairs.”
4. “Planned work. We put certain not-urgent work into ‘packages’ of work that can be carried out all together in an area. This is more efficient and costs less.”
The Tenants Handbook further states that “When you report a repair, we will assess the problem and put it into a response time category… In some cases, we may make an appointment for an inspector to visit and assess exactly what work needs to be done.” With regards to “Pre-inspections”, the Handbook states “we may have to visit your home before we start repair works. This could be:
1. to get more information about the problem.
2. to quote for a handyman repair.
3. because the nature of the repair needs a site inspection (such as a problem with damp).
4. to take measurements, for instance when new fittings or fixtures are required.”
The landlord’s leaflet on Tenant Responsibilities states in regard to damp and condensation, “Especially in colder weather, many of our tenants suffer with damp, condensation and mould in their homes. There are many possible causes for this, some that are the council’s responsibility and some that are the tenant’s. We have a handy advice leaflet available to help you reduce condensation in the home.” The Damp, Mould and Condensation leaflet provides advice on the main ways to tackle condensation: “stop moisture building up; ventilate, or air, the home; and keep your home warm”. The leaflet further states that if residents have followed all the advice provided and if they are certain that the mould is not caused by condensation, they can report the matter further so that diagnostic questions can be asked, and a visit can be made.”
The landlord’s ASB policy states that “when we receive a complaint about ASB we will assess the type of ASB being claimed to determine how quickly we need to respond. It will be assigned to one of four categories. We will also complete a risk assessment matrix to enable us to work out who is vulnerable for both complainants and perpetrators, where applicable. The policy confirms the landlord’s responsibility to investigate ASB and notes that the landlord “will take all reports of ASB seriously and investigate impartially”. This includes “interview[ing] the alleged perpetrator to make them aware of the issues being reported at an early stage.”

Summary of Events

The resident is a tenant of the landlord, her property being a bungalow. There is a note on the resident’s file from October 2019 stating that the landlord should arrange any appointment via letter so that the resident can arrange for someone to be present. The resident has a representative who does not reside with her.
On 15 October 2020, a Neighbourhood Officer (NO) carried out a Neighbourhood Walkabout on the resident’s estate. The landlord’s records indicate that it had emailed the representative on 1 October 2020 to advise him of the walkabout. A Public Health and Safety Officer (PHSO) from the Council’s Environmental Health department was also carrying visits on the estate on the same day.
The day after the walkabout the resident phoned the landlord stating that she had been visited and needed to have a representative with her. Furthermore, the resident raised concerns that she was told not to have three cats as she only had permission for two and was warned about a cat flap she had installed without permission.
The landlord also spoke to the resident’s partner who raised concerns about the NO not wearing a mask; making a comment “you are answering your door; you are in this time”; having other people with her that she did not introduce; discussing with the resident about rehoming a cat; and installing a cat flap without permission even though the landlord had fitted the flap as the door was old. On 19 October 2020, the landlord raised a formal complaint.
When investigating the complaint, the landlord obtained a statement from the NO but did not speak to her or the PHSO. On 22 October 2020 the landlord sent the Stage 1 response:
1. The PHSO needed to carry out a test at the resident’s property but as no-one had provided access at previous appointments, she carried out a cold-call joint visit with the NO.
2. The NO was not wearing a mask as she had no intention of entering the resident’s property.
3. Neither the NO nor the PHSO recalled making a comment about the resident being at home at the time. This would not have been said with the intention of causing offence.
4. With regard to equality duties, it expected all officers to ensure that they give due regard to equality issues and adapt their style to take account of such matters as necessary. All officers undergo Equality and Diversity training annually, and the NO was an experienced officer.
5. The NO has a responsibility to enforce the terms and conditions of the tenancy agreement, and it was sorry that the resident felt she was intimidating although that would not be her intention.
6. Since the resident had explained her health conditions, it requested that she write to ask for retrospective permission for the third cat by 22 November 2020.
7. The NO was simply asking about the cat flap as this had not been noticed previously and in line with her role. As there was no record of the resident asking permission or that the landlord had carried out the work itself, the NO requested the resident to ask for retrospective permission for the cat flap by 22 November 2020. Providing the repairs service were in agreement, the cat flap could remain in situ, but when it replaced the door, it would not permit another cat flap.
After sending the Stage 1 response the landlord had conversations with the representative and then the resident to confirm its understanding of the complaint. The landlord noted various concerns including the unannounced visit by the NO; there were other men accompanying the NO; the NO not wearing a mask; and her wish for a new front door without a glass panel as that was what she had requested previously. On 28 October 2020 the landlord advised the resident that it would escalate the complaint to Stage 2.
As part of the Stage 2 complaint investigation, the landlord spoke to the NO and the PHSO. The NO advised there were errors in the Stage 1 response. Both members of staff confirmed that they were not expecting to see each other on the resident’s estate at that time (although due to meet later that day elsewhere) and bumped into each other just outside the resident’s property. The NO confirmed that she did remark about the presence of a cat flap and that she advised the resident to seek retrospective permission for three cats.
On 17 November 2020 the landlord sent the Stage 2 response. It advised that it had interviewed the NO who advised that the Stage 1 investigating officer had not properly understood matters from her written statement. The landlord also confirmed that it had now also interviewed the PHSO. The landlord addressed new points that had been raised by the resident and her representative and found that:
1. It confirmed that the NO on 15 October 2020 had inspected the area to the rear of the resident’s property as part of a scheduled estate inspection, known as an Estate Walkabout, and it was coincidental that she bumped into the PHSO outside the resident’s property. The landlord apologised for the confusion caused by the Stage 1 response. The landlord also noted that it had published the dates of Neighbourhood Walkabouts online which confirmed the walkabout of 15 October 2020 was scheduled and it was in line with the Neighbourhood Management Policy that it inspected all areas of the estate.
2. The NO had stated she was wearing a face mask. The PHSO had confirmed the information provided to the Stage 1 investigation which was that she could not recall whether the NO was wearing a face mask. It did not uphold this complaint as there were two conflicting accounts and the PHSO could not corroborate either account.
3. With regard to the comment about the resident being at home, the landlord advised that the NO and PHSO exchanged words after bumping into each other, including “fancy seeing you here…”, and that the resident had overheard their conversation and incorrectly assumed the NO was addressing her.
4. With regards to the resident’s complaint that other people were “hanging around” with the NO and PHSO outside her garden, both members of staff stated that they were unaccompanied by other members of staff, residents, or councillors.
5. It reiterated the Stage 1 findings in respect of the resident’s complaint that the NO did not understand equalities issues.
6. With regards to the resident feeling intimidated by the NO, staff had to deal with delicate and sensitive matters and could say things that cause upset. It was sorry that the resident felt that way and agreed that the NO would not have intended to cause offence.
7. It would be reasonable for the resident to keep three cats and a cat flap. The resident would write seeking retrospective permission so there was a record of her request, and it was appropriate that the NO draw her attention to this. However, Building Services would not permit the installation of a cat flap on any new back door that was installed.
8. In respect of concerns raised about other residents, it recognised that the resident was viewed as “different” by some neighbours and asked for any information on complaints she had so it could investigate.
9. With regards to concerns raised about a fence installed by the neighbour, although it was not clear why the neighbour had done this, the fence was in good condition, and it would not ask the neighbour to remove the section across the communal path.
10. There were no plans to change the front door. Any request for a solid replacement design could only be actioned if the police or Devon Sanctuary Scheme made a request.
11. With regards to the resident’s concerns about parking it operated a first come first serve policy. It suggested that the resident liaise with her neighbours or enter mediation.
On 3 December 2020 the representative wrote to the landlord requesting that a cat flap be installed to the rear door. He argued that this had been agreed by a representative from the door manufacturer and confirmed by the manufacturer in a phone conversation to him. The landlord also advised on 11 December 2020 that regardless of the advice from the door manufacturer, Building Services would not agree the request for a cat flap unless there was evidence of a reasonable adjustment.
Also on 11 December 2020, the landlord noted that the representative remained dissatisfied with the outcome of the complaint and on 14 December 2020, it stated it would further review the complaint taking into account points that had been raised.
The representative separately raised concerns about conversation with a member of staff whereby the member of staff made assumptions about the resident self-harming and then made statements about safeguarding. On 14 December 2020. after being provided with the landlord’s record of the call, the representative raised concerns about inaccuracies. The resident’s concerns were referred to the landlord’s Human Resources department. On 7 January 2021, the landlord confirmed that it had initiated a formal process to investigate the matter although it could not provide further details due to data protection and employee confidentiality.
On 14 December 2021 the landlord wrote to the resident addressing her queries about what was agreed by the door manufacturer with regards to the door specifications, in particular that there was too much glazing on the front door and no cat flap on the back. The landlord advised that it was likely the surveyor from the door manufacturer was not familiar with its scope of options and apologised if this led to unrealistic expectations. It also advised that it was not obliged to change the doors.
On 21 December 2020 the landlord wrote to the resident advising that having now received medical information, it would replace the front door glazing with a UPVC panel and spy hole, and replace the thumb turn lock with a key lock. It advised that the works would be completed as the same time as installing a fixed shower screen that the adaptations team had approved. With regards to the cat flap, the landlord stated that there was insufficient evidence to install one as a minor disabled adaptation but agreed to permit the resident to install a cat flap providing she fund the cost of a replacement UPVC panel or provide one herself. If agreed, the landlord stated that it would provide a quote for a replacement panel and formal written permission.
On 22 December 2020, the landlord inspected the resident’s front path, having received a repair request on 30 November 2020. Following the appointment, the landlord raised an order to repair an area of defective path with a target date of 28 March 2021.
In an exchange of correspondence from 4-5 January 2020 the representative accepted the landlord’s proposal for a cat flap. The representative also stated that the windows were not in good state of repair and queried the inspection of the path and order raised. The landlord advised that it had raised an order to “renew area of defective front path, r/h/side, between 18 and 19, remove any poss. trip hazards”, and that it intended to complete the works before the end of the financial year although there was a backlog of external works due to Covid-19 lockdowns. On 6 January 2020, the landlord spoke to the representative.
Also, in January 2021, the resident reported several other repair issues including damage to window seals and a request for a humidity controller to be installed to an in-line fan. The landlord advised that the windows would be picked up as part of a planned programme of works. Its internal correspondence indicates that there is planned programme for window renewals for 2023-24.
On 13 January 2021, the landlord sent a further Stage 2 response to the complaint. It stated that:
1. It had nothing further to add with regards to the NO visiting the resident’s home without notice. It apologised for the confusion in the Stage 1 response.
2. It did not uphold the resident’s complaint that NO was not wearing a face mask as there were two conflicting accounts and there was no further evidence to review.
3. It did not uphold the resident’s complaint that the NO made a comment about the fact the resident was home. This was because the NO and the PHSO were addressing each other
4. Both the NO and Ms X had confirmed that they were not there with any other individuals, and there were no other records or reasons to suggest that other officers were present.
5. It did not uphold the complaint that the NO had no understanding of equality duty issues as front-line officers had comprehensive training programmes. It also considered the experience and knowledge that the NO had demonstrated in carrying out duties.
6. In response to the resident advising that she felt intimidated by the NO, the landlord reiterated the apology for any upset inadvertently caused.
The landlord addressed the new points that the representative had raised:
1. Since the previous response, permission for a cat flat had been granted provided a new panel was fitted to accommodate this. It has asked for a handyman quotation for a replacement panel to replace the one which would have a hole put in it for the cat flap.
2. It did not uphold the resident’s complaint that the NO did not take into account her health issues as the NO was near her property to look at communal areas and gardens on the estate in line with neighbourhood management policies and not to visit the resident.
3. For the same reason it did not uphold the resident’s complaint that the NO carried out an unannounced visit to the resident.
4. In response to the resident’s complaint that the NO was picking on her, the NO was simply following neighbourhood management policies and enforcing conditions of tenancy in line with the duties for the role.
5. If the resident or her representative could provide more information about any incidents involving neighbours, it would investigate accordingly.
6. Since the previous response, the resident confirmed that she accepted the neighbour’s fence; however, the resident had raised concerns about the condition of the path in front of the property that needed to be used because of the fence. It had inspected on 30 November 2020 and established that the path needed replacing but was not dangerous and did not present a trip hazard. A 90-day “planned responsive” repair was raised with a target completion date on 28 February 2021. (It is understood this was a typographical error and the date should have read 28 March 2021).
7. With regard to the resident’s complaint that a new front door was fitted that did not meet the specification of the manufacturer, there was no evidence at the time to support the resident’s claim that her health needs required the glass panel to be removed. After receiving the evidence, the landlord agreed to replace the glazed panel with a solid one with a spyhole. However, there was no justification to fit a cat flap on the same grounds although it had informed the resident that she should purchase a panel to go into the back door that would enable a cat flap to be fitted. It had been able to facilitate a cat flap being installed but the specification for UPVC doors and windows was part of the contract agreement and could not be changed for tenant preferences.
8. It had advised that parking was often “first come, first served” on older estates. The resident had accepted this and stated she would not pursue this aspect of her complaint.
The landlord further noted that the representative on 6 January 2021 had advised he had a copy of the door manufacturer’s report following the initial survey, which noted that a cat flap was to be installed. However, it had previously advised that contractors were not always aware of its offer and in this case the door manufacturer may have provided wrong advice.
In response to the complaint that a member of staff had “maliciously” escalated safeguarding concerns to the Adult Social Care team following phone calls from the representative, the landlord confirmed its Human Resources department had investigated. It explained that a legal duty of care was placed on public sector officers because of concerns that different agencies were not sharing information which meant social care services did not have sight of the full picture in any given situation and opportunities were missed that could have prevented someone coming to harm and/or prevented an individual getting the help or support they need. The landlord concluded that the member of staff both understood this duty and the challenge it presented and made a reasonable and correct decision, and in doing so, she followed all of the landlord’s safeguarding procedures in regard to the information she received from the representative about possible suicidal thoughts and self-harm. The landlord further confirmed that “At no stage were any specific accusations or pointers of blame made, rather information about welfare concerns were simply passed on to the appropriate social care body as we are bound to do.”
On 26 January 2021, the landlord attended the resident’s property to inspect the fan and the electric bathroom heater, which the resident was hesitant about using. On 27 January 2021 the landlord carried out works to the shower screen and door, having brought forward the appointment one day. On 28 January 2021 the landlord wrote to the resident following the inspection of 26 January 2021. It advised that the blown double-glazed units would be added to the planned maintenance contract. It noted that the parties had discussed the fan and heating in the bathroom and agreed that the fan was working as was the fan heater and towel rail. It confirmed that it would not replace them as long as they functioned correctly, and that generally it would not renew fittings unless they were not working or part of planned works. The landlord also confirmed that it would be carrying out several repairs on 19 February 2021 including refixing a loose rubber seal on the bedroom window.
There followed an exchange of correspondence between the representative and the landlord and several phone calls on 28 January 2021 in which the representative raised concerns that the landlord had arranged directly with the resident to bring forward the appointment. He also raised concerns that the shower screen was not installed square. The representative further contended that the bathroom did not get up sufficiently warm with just the small towel rail heater and that the fan heater was not suitable for permanent use and would cut off. He noted that black mould was growing back from behind the shower board. The landlord asked the representative to provide a photo of the shower screen installation and stated that concerns about the window seals had been passed to Planned Maintenance.
Within the correspondence, on 1 February 2021, the representative advised that he wanted to make a new complaint about the handling of repair issues and staff behaviour after the landlord advised that a senior member of staff in the repairs service could not immediately speak to him. The landlord advised that he could refer his complaint to this Service stating that it was “aware that any report from you of damp, issues with the windows and the heating in the bathroom has been inspected and we have responded accordingly.” On 4 and 10 February 2021, the landlord advised it would not raise a new complaint and he could refer his complaints to this Service.
On 15 February 2021 the landlord wrote to the resident asking if she could confirm if the bathroom was able to meet 18°C with both the towel rail and flow heater on. It stated, if not, it would arrange a visit; however, “if it is possible for the bathroom to achieve a minimum 18 degrees with both heaters on, we would not be looking to arrange a visit, as this would indicate that they are working as expected.
On 18 March 2021 the landlord sent a service request response confirming that it would be carrying out the repair to the path on 19 April 2021. It has advised this Service that the repair has been completed.
The landlord has confirmed that defective window seals for the bedroom window were repaired on 16 April 2021, as access was not gained for the earlier appointment for 19 February 2021.

Assessment and findings

The conduct, behaviour and comments by landlord staff made to the resident when visiting her property, with or without prior notice

It was in accordance with its Neighbourhood Management Policy that the landlord carried out a Neighbourhood Walkabout on the resident’s estate on 15 October 2020. Its email of 1 October 2020 to the representative confirms that there was a walkabout planned for that day, and furthermore, in its responses to the resident, it advised that the date was published on its website. Under the policy, the landlord should inspect tenants’ properties, which included the resident’s; however, there is no evidence that the landlord intended to purposely visit the resident and speak to her.
It is not disputed that the landlord spoke to the resident on 15 October 2020, about the number of cats she had and the installation of a cat flap. It was reasonable and pragmatic that the landlord did so as these were issues that the landlord had to authorise so as to ensure that the resident did not breach her tenancy. When subsequently responding to the resident’s formal complaint, the landlord confirmed that it would give permission for three cats and a cat flap, thereby taking steps to resolve the substantive issues highlighted on 15 October 2020 and to provide reassurance to the resident.
The resident raised concerns about the conduct of the NO on 15 October 2020. The landlord took appropriate steps to investigate the resident’s concerns insofar as it sought information from the NO and the PHSO who was also present, and specifically asked about points raised by the resident. These were whether the visit was unannounced; whether there were other people present; whether the NO was wearing a mask; and whether a pointed comment was made about resident being at home at that time. Effective complaint resolution involves explaining how decisions have been reached, and in this regard, it was also appropriate that the landlord relayed the accounts of the PHSO and NO in its complaint responses, in particularly explaining why the comments complained of have been misinterpreted. With regards to the facemask issue, it was appropriate that the landlord noted that there were two conflicting accounts, as there was no corroborative evidence for either account.
Whilst the landlord did not uphold the resident’s complaint, it was evident that the resident was distressed by the actions of the NO on 15 October 2021. As such, it was reasonable and conciliatory that the landlord recognised this and apologised for the offence and upset caused. However, the fact that there were errors in the Stage 1 response, in particular by the landlord stating that the NO was jointly visiting with the PHSO and not wearing a facemask, caused confusion and potentially weakened the resident’s confidence in it being able to carry out a fair and accurate investigation. The landlord took steps to this matter right by apologising and explaining the shortcomings in the Stage 1 investigation. However, a recommendation applicable for future complaints has been made on this point.

Window repairs

The landlord’s repair obligation is to keep the resident’s property in a good state of repair. It was in line with the Repairs Policy that the landlord inspected the windows on 26 January 2020 to decide what further action should be taken, and it is reasonable that it relies on the professional judgement of member of staffs appointed to make technical repair decisions.
Further to the inspection, the landlord carried out a repair to a window seal thereby taking steps to ensure that window was in a good state of repair by preventing cold air from entering through the window. The resident also raised concerns about blown (misted) windows. It was in line with the Repairs Policy on Planned Works that the landlord advised that the windows would be replaced under a planned maintenance programme. This decision is reasonable as the policy recognises that it is more efficient and less costly for social landlords to carry out new window installations across many properties in an area under a single contract. Landlords have a responsibility to be financially viable and prioritise the use of limited budgets for repair and maintenance. There is no evidence that the windows in the resident’s property needed to be replaced more urgently on an individual basis.

Bathroom heating

The resident also raised concerns about the heating in her bathroom. The landlord has explained to this Service that the resident’s property does not have a gas supply, so it has supplied a heated towel rail for background heat and an electric down flow heater to heat the bathroom before using. By installing these appliances, the landlord has taken steps to meet its repair obligation to provide heating to the room. Although the resident has expressed reluctance about using the electric heater, it is not obliged to change the heating supply to the bathroom, and it is reasonable to expect the resident to use the appliances in her property.
However, as the resident raised concern about level of heat in the bathroom the landlord was required to investigate whether the heating appliances were functioning correctly. The landlord took steps to investigate insofar as it visited on 26 January 2020. However, its letter of 28 January 2020 confirming the outcome of the visit did not make clear why it considered the electric heater and towel rail were working correctly, for instance by confirming that it had tested the operation of the appliances and/or what temperature heat was emitted. The representative had stated that the heater “cut out”, therefore it was remiss that the landlord did not test this.
The landlord later took steps to resolve the bathroom heating issue by advising the resident to inform it if the bathroom could meet a temperature of 18ׄ°C. However, this response was also not sufficient to resolve the complaint as it did not explain why it would not take any further action if 18°C was reached; other organisations such as energy suppliers recommend a higher temperature for the bathroom. The response also did not take into account the circumstances of the resident, for instance what level of thermal comfort she wanted.

The landlord’s response to damp and mould reports

The resident reported that there was damp and mould in her bathroom. The landlord’s Tenant Responsibilities leaflet recognises that there are different causes for damp, condensation, and mould. The landlord had the opportunity to inspect the bathroom on 26 January 2021 which included inspecting the damp and mould reported. However, its letter of 28 January 2021, in which it outlined the result of its inspection, did not confirm that it had witnessed any damp and mould, and what its findings were. The landlord also did not make clear what action should be taken by each party. There is therefore no evidence that the landlord investigated the resident’s reports of damp and mould at the time it was reported.
The landlord has advised this Service that it believes that there is condensation in the bathroom, which is caused, at least in part, by the resident not using her heater. However, there is no evidence that the landlord explicitly told this to the resident or otherwise provided guidance on reducing possible condensation, which could include providing her with its information leaflet. After the representative contacted the landlord after the inspection, the landlord had further opportunity to confirm its position on the damp and mould that the resident had reported and to explain what actions she should take herself; however, it did not do so and advised her to contact this Service. The landlord has therefore failed to provide guidance to the resident about reducing possible condensation in the property. It was important that it do so in order to confirm that there was indeed condensation in property arising from the resident’s actions, and that there were no further actions required on its part.

Repairs to the front path

In line with the Repairs Policy the landlord carried out an inspection of the resident’s path on 30 November 2020 to establish what repair was necessary. It subsequently raised an order for works so as to remove trip hazards. It took appropriate steps to manage the resident’s expectation about the completion of the works by advising that it intended to complete the repairs by the end of the financial year, in line with the target date for the works, although this may be delayed due to a backlog of works.
The landlord has completed the repairs, thereby taking steps to resolve this complaint. The landlord did not meet the target date of 28 March 2021; however, the works were not significantly delayed, being completed on 19 April 2021. It also kept the resident informed by advising her on 18 March 2021 of the appointment for 19 April 2021.
The landlord has confirmed to this Service that most repairs to paths are categorised in a similar way to highways, where significant defects are present, such as a vertical deviation of more than 20mm, this is dealt with more urgently, normally within a month, whereas a lesser defect may be added to a ‘planned contract’, for the next financial year. The landlord has further confirmed that the path was deemed as the latter as it did not identify a defect and that it carried out works on a proactive basis. The landlord has also advised that COVID-19 also had an impact on the timescale for these works.

The front door is not to the resident’s agreed specification

The resident advised in her complaint that she had agreed the specifications of her front door with the door manufacturer. In particular, she advised that she did not want the door to have too much glazing. Ultimately, it was the responsibility of the landlord as the owner of the resident’s property to decide what type of door to install in the resident’s property and instruct the door manufacturer accordingly. The landlord was not obliged to install a door to the resident’s preference, in the first instance.
The resident’s expectations had evidently been raised. The landlord took steps to offer redress by apologising in its complaint responses and explaining that it set out the scope of options for the door. After subsequently receiving supporting medical information the landlord recognised the resident’s needs and acted responsively by agreeing to install a panel with a spyhole to replace glazing on the door. Additionally, it changed the locking mechanism. The landlord’s repair records indicate that these works were completed on 28 January 2021. The landlord in taking into account the supporting medical evidence has carried out works to the door to meet the resident’s needs and therefore taken reasonable steps to resolve this complaint.
The correspondence to this Service shows that the representative has queried whether the panel installed by the landlord is approved by the door manufacturer and will affect the warranty. It is recommended that the landlord writes to the resident and her representative to answer this point.

Reports of ASB behaviour made against the resident by a neighbour have not been addressed

According to the evidence provided to this Service, the resident has not made specific reports of ASB against neighbours to the landlord. In August 2019, the landlord received reports from neighbours about the behaviour of the resident. On 6 August 2019 the landlord sent the resident a warning letter, then spoke to her by phone on 10 September 2019. In November 2019, it closed the complaint as no further issues were raised.
The landlord had a responsibility under the ASB policy to investigate the reports made against the resident, which have been seen by this Service. It was in accordance with the policy that the landlord wrote to the resident and spoke to her about the reports. Furthermore, by contacting the resident, it provided her with the opportunity to provide her version of events and amend her behaviour, as necessary.
The resident during the course of the complaint raised concerns about her neighbours. Given the concerns raised it was appropriate that the landlord asked the resident to provide further information. Further information, in particular specific reports of incidents, would allow the landlord to investigate and establish whether the behaviour of any neighbour is unreasonable and constitutes ASB. It should be noted that in some situations, there may be lifestyle differences and personality clashes which may be considered to be a neighbour dispute rather than ASB. Therefore, it was important that the landlord sought further information from the resident.

Complaint Handling

The landlord has a two–stage complaints procedure. In this case, the landlord sent two responses at Stage 2. Whilst this was not prescribed by the complaints procedure, it is in line with this Service’s Dispute Resolution Principle of “Being Fair”, that landlords are flexible in application of policy, practice, and process to ensure that individual needs are taken into account. In this case, the landlord had addressed new issues in the Stage 2 response of 17 November 2020. The further Stage 2 response of 13 January 2021 allowed for a review of the further matters considered within the complaints procedure. It was therefore reasonable that the landlord sent a further Stage 2 response.
However, in the response of 13 January 2021, the landlord responded to the resident’s complaint about the landlord making a safeguarding referral. There is no evidence that it had agreed with the resident to incorporate this complaint within the existing complaint. By responding to the safeguarding complaint within the further Stage 2 complaint response of 13 January 2021, the landlord denied the resident the opportunity to escalate the complaint about the safeguarding complaint within the complaints procedure. As such it did not follow a fair process with regards to the handling of this complaint.
Furthermore, the landlord advised the resident on 1 February 2021 that it would not raise a complaint about its handling of repair issues being pursued at that time, namely the windows, heating in the bathroom and damp and mould. Under this Service’s Complaint Handling Code, a landlord shall accept a complaint unless there is a valid reason not to do so. In this case, the landlord’s handling of these repair issues had not been investigated within its complaints procedure, therefore there was no good reason for the landlord not to have raised a complaint at this time. Moreover, the representative was unhappy about the availability of staff which related to the landlord’s service standards, and which therefore was an appropriate matter to respond to as a formal complaint. As such, the landlord did not follow a fair process with regards to the handling of this complaint about repair issues.

Determination (decision)

The conduct, behaviour and comments by landlord staff made to the resident when visiting her property, with or without prior notice

In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration by the landlord.

Window repairs

In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration by the landlord.

Bathroom heating

In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure by the landlord.

The landlord’s response to damp and mould reports

In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure by the landlord.

Repairs to the resident’s front path

In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration by the landlord.

The front door is not to the resident’s agreed specification

In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration by the landlord.

Reports of antisocial behaviour made against the resident by a neighbour have not been addressed

In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration by the landlord.

The landlord’s complaint handling

In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure by the landlord.

Reasons

The conduct, behaviour and comments by landlord staff made to the resident when visiting her property, with or without prior notice

It was reasonable and pragmatic that the landlord took the opportunity at the Neighbourhood Walkabout on 15 October 2021 to raise the issues of the number of cats the resident had and her cat flap as these were issues that the landlord had to authorise so as to ensure that the resident did not breach her tenancy. When subsequently responding to the resident’s formal complaint the landlord confirmed that it would give permission for three cats and a cat flap, thereby taking steps to resolve the substantive issues highlighted on 15 October 2020 and to provide reassurance to the resident.
It was appropriate that the landlord investigated the resident’s concerns about the conduct of the NO insofar as it sought information from the NO and the PHSO. It was appropriate that the landlord relayed their accounts in its complaint responses in order to explain its decision. It was also reasonable and conciliatory that the landlord recognised the distress experienced by the resident and apologised for the offence and upset caused.

Window repairs

It was in line with the Repairs Policy that the landlord inspected the windows on 26 January 2020 to decide what further action should be taken. The landlord subsequently carried out a repair to a window seal thereby taking steps to ensure that the window was in a good state of repair by preventing cold air from entering through the window. It was also in line with the Repairs Policy on Planned Works that the landlord advised that the windows would be replaced under a planned maintenance programme.

Bathroom Heating

The landlord did not make clear why it considered the electric heater and towel rail were working correctly, for instance by confirming that it had tested the operation of the appliances and what temperature heat was emitted. Although the landlord wrote further to the resident, it did not explain why it would not take any further action if 18°C was reached. This was unreasonable as other organisations such as energy suppliers recommend a higher temperature for the bathroom.

The landlord’s response to damp and mould reports

The landlord’s letter of 28 January 2021, in which it outlined the result of its inspection of 26 January 2021, did not confirm that it had witnessed any damp and mould, and what its findings were. The landlord also did not make clear what action should be taken by each party. There is therefore no evidence that the landlord investigated the resident’s reports of damp and mould at the time it was reported.
The landlord also failed to provide guidance to the resident about reducing possible condensation in the property. It was important that it do so in order to confirm that there was indeed condensation in property arising from the actions of the resident and that there were no further actions required on its part.

Repairs to the front path

In line with the Repairs Policy the landlord carried out an inspection of the resident’s path on 30 November 2020 to establish what repair was necessary. It subsequently raised an order for works so as to remove trip hazards. The landlord has completed the repairs and advised the resident of the timeframe, thereby taking steps to resolve this complaint.

The front door is not to the resident’s agreed specification

Ultimately, it was the responsibility of the landlord as the owner of the resident’s property to decide what type of door to install in the resident’s property and to instruct the door manufacturer accordingly. After subsequently receiving medical information, the landlord recognised the resident’s needs and acted responsively by agreeing to install a panel with a spyhole to replace glazing on the door.

Reports of ASB made against the resident by a neighbour have not been addressed

The landlord had a responsibility under the ASB policy to investigate the reports made against the resident, which have been seen by this Service. It was in accordance with the policy that the landlord wrote to the resident and spoke to her about the reports. Also, given the concerns raised by the resident about other neighbours, it was appropriate that the landlord asked the resident to provide further information.

Complaint Handling

By responding to the safeguarding complaint within the further Stage 2 complaint response of 13 January 2021, the landlord denied the resident the opportunity to escalate this complaint within the complaints procedure. As such, it did not follow a fair process with regards to the handling of this complaint.
The landlord’s handling of window repairs; heating in the bathroom; and damp and mould had not been investigated within its complaints procedure, therefore there was no good reason for the landlord not to have raised a complaint at this time. Moreover, the representative was unhappy about the availability of staff which related to the landlord’s service standards, and which therefore was an appropriate matter to respond to as a formal complaint.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

The landlord arranges an inspection of the resident’s bathroom for damp / mould / condensation. It should then confirm its findings and the next steps in writing including any action that it expects the resident to take.
The landlord writes to the resident again requesting that she provides the temperature in her bathroom and/or arranges to visit again to test the heating appliances and the temperature emitted.
The landlord contacts the resident and her representative to confirm if they remain dissatisfied with the handling of the complaint about the safeguarding referral. If so, the landlord should send a further Stage 2 response to the complaint, ensuring the complaint is investigated by a different member of staff with sufficient authority to deal with the complaint.
The landlord pays the resident £100 for the distress and inconvenience caused by the failings in its handling of her complaint about the heating in the bathroom and damp and mould.
The landlord pays the resident £50 for the distress and inconvenience caused by the failings in the landlord’s complaints handling.

Recommendations

The landlord when investigating complaints about the conduct of staff takes steps to ensure that it correctly understands the staff’s version of events, so as to prevent any inaccuracies and errors in the complaint response.
The landlord writes to the resident to confirm whether the panel installed on the front door has affected the manufacturer’s warrantee for the door.