Hyde Housing Association Limited (202103219)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202103219

Hyde Housing Association Limited

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

1. The complaint is about the landlord erroneously changing the locks at the property and its subsequent investigation of the error.
2. The complaint is also about the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background and summary of events

3. The resident has been an assured tenant of the landlord, at the property from 13 October 2009.
4. On 8 July 2020, the resident heard unexpected drilling at his door and when he went to it, he found that the locks were being changed. The individuals changing the locks advised that they were doing so due to being advised that there was a resident who was returning from hospital and would be unable to enter the property. The resident went to get a pen and paper to write down more details but by the time he returned to the door, the individuals – one of whom he recognised as a landlord staff member- had left.
5. The resident contacted the landlord who advised it had no record of the lock replacement and advised him to call the police and said it would attend and change the lock.
6. The resident complained to the landlord about the issue, believing it to have been the landlord who changed the locks, which the landlord maintained it was not responsible for. The resident contacted the landlord on 13 August 2020 and 13 September 2020 about the issue and the landlord logged it as a stage one complaint on 14 September 2020.
7. On the same date, the landlord spoke to its contractor who also had no record of the lock replacement. The landlord requested that the contractor check the rest of the block – as it had also done itself – and still no lock change was recorded. The landlord then contacted ‘resident services’ and its property manager to check whether works to change the locks had been raised and could find nothing.
8. On 15 September 2020, the landlord advised the resident that it would respond by 13 October 2020.
9. On 16 October 2020, having not received a response, the resident chased the landlord, expressing his dissatisfaction that he had not been contacted. He expressed his dissatisfaction with the landlord’s investigation of the complaint, asking whether it had checked if any other properties were due to have locks changed that day or spoken with the member of staff who attended.
10. On the same date the landlord responded, apologising that it was taking time to investigate, stating that investigations were ongoing, although it advised that the contractor had stated there was no repair confirmed at the property.
11. On or around 28 October 2020, the landlord provided its stage one response to the complaint. It concluded that there was no evidence it had attended the property on 8 July 2020 and changed the locks and that the information and advice it had given at the time was correct.
12. On 29 October 2020, the resident emailed the landlord, stating that he did not accept its response; he was of the view that his complaint had not been thoroughly investigated and said he would be escalating the matter to the Housing Ombudsman and contacting the police about wasting police time.
13. On 8 November 2020, the resident emailed the landlord stating his dissatisfaction with its handling of his complaint, stating it had been ten days since its last contact. The resident also expressed his dissatisfaction that the landlord had said it was referring the matter back to the repairs team because the repairs team had already failed to investigate properly.
14. On 10 November 2020, the resident chased the landlord as to his complaint again. The landlord reiterated over the telephone that it had not attended and changed the lock. The resident did not accept that it was not the landlord, believing that he recognised a member of staff.
15. On the same date, the landlord wrote to the resident and advised that it had escalated his complaint to stage two of its complaints procedure and that it would provide a response by 7 December 2020. It also emailed the resident and said it would call the following week with an update.
16. On 13 November 2020, the landlord telephoned the resident to ask if a key safe had been fitted and he confirmed it had not.
17. On 17 November 2020, the resident emailed the landlord his continued dissatisfaction with its investigation of the matter and complaints response, enquiring as to why the landlord had not looked into who had attended, as both he and his wife recognised a member of staff as a landlord employee.  The resident suspected the landlord had gotten the address wrong.
18. On the same date, the landlord telephoned the resident to advise that it was sure it had attended the incorrect address.
19. On 3 December 2020, the resident received a text message advising that the landlord would be attending the property the following day. The resident was not expecting an appointment and telephoned the landlord to enquire as to why he had received a message and was told that it was to repair a light in the bathroom. There was no broken light, and he emailed the landlord about it to complain that this situation had occurred again – the landlord had gotten the works address wrong.
20. On 4 December 2020, the landlord provided its stage two response to the complaint. It found that it was responsible for attending and changing the locks on 8 July 2020, explaining that it had mixed up the resident’s property with one in another block. It stated that the individual who had been identified by the resident was an NHS nurse. The landlord expressed its deep apologies for the error and offered £150 compensation in recognition of this, broken down as £50 for distress and inconvenience, £50 for the resident’s patience throughout the complaints process and £50 for the error.
21. The landlord also apologised for the text message the resident had received in error on 3 December 2020. To help prevent a recurrence, the landlord explained it had spoken with staff and its contractor and had advised that any errors, such as the one the resident had experienced, should be immediately reported to it.

Assessment and findings

Policies

22. The landlord has a two-stage formal complaints policy, with an option of an ‘informal’ complaint in circumstances where the situation is quick to resolve and no investigation is required.
23. In respect of informal complaints, the landlord will contact the complainant within one working day and aims to provide a response within five working days.
24. For formal complaints, the landlord will provide a formal acknowledgement of the complaint within two working days and aims to provide a substantive response within ten working days of receipt. Where extra time is needed, the landlord will contact the complainant and advise them of this. This will be no longer than a further ten working days.
25. Where a complainant is dissatisfied with the landlord’s response at stage one of the complaints process, they may request escalation of the matter to stage two. The landlord aims to respond to a complaint at stage two within twenty working days. Were longer is needed, similarly to stage one, the landlord will let the complainant know and no longer than ten working ways thereafter.
26. The landlord’s compensation policy states that it may offer up to £25 for issues of service failure and goodwill gestures. The compensation policy also sets out that compensation may be offered for ‘delay and distress’; up to £500 for a ‘major impact’ as a result of the delay. This is similarly the case for ‘distress and inconvenience’. For ‘time and trouble’ there is a guideline of a maximum of £50 to be offered.

Changing the locks 

27. The landlord erroneously attended the property to change the locks and did so whilst the resident was in it, although did not initially realise the error. In circumstances where there was potentially a risk to the resident’s safety and security, the landlord gave the correct advice to the resident over the telephone, in that he should contact the police. 
28. This error was deeply unfortunate, inconvenient and undoubtedly stressful.  The resident’s frustration with landlord at having made the error and its subsequent handling of the complaint is understandable. There are rare occasions where mistakes such as this do happen, however, and the landlord responded appropriately on the face of the information it had at that moment in time.
29. The landlord also appropriately checked its systems to establish whether any works had been raised and asked its contractor to also check, in order to establish whether an error had been made on its part, due to the resident’s assertion that he recognised a member of landlord staff during the lock change. There remains a disparity between the resident’s assertions that he recognised one of those who were undertaking the lock change and the landlord’s eventual finding that the individual was an NHS nurse. The resident did not only describe this individual’s appearance but said where he had seen them working, which would enable the landlord to ascertain who the member of staff was from the likely job role. It is not clear why the landlord did not undertake this avenue of inquiry initially. However, this Service is unable to ascertain the actual identity of the individual. 
30. The landlord relied on its systems which seemingly were unable to cross-search works and properties and so it was then reliant on information provided by its contractor whose systems also seemed to not be able to do this. The error was not reported by the individuals who attended the property either, which compounded the issue, causing unnecessary stress and delay in establishing the root cause of what happened. 
31. The discovery that it had in fact erroneously attended and changed the locks was also only made following a mishearing of the address; when that incorrect address was typed into the system, the works were showing as having been scheduled at the other property.
32. The landlord thereafter did appropriately acknowledge the error it had made, apologising for this, and offering compensation in recognition of what had happened, although this was some considerable amount of time later and only after the resident persisted in his assertion that it was indeed the landlord who had made the error because he and his wife had recognised one of the individuals. 
33. There were failures at different points in this case. Firstly, there was the initial failure which led to the locks being changed at an incorrect address. Secondly, there was behaviour of the staff and contractors at the lock change – initially in changing the locks without first checking whether anyone was at home, then, in disappearing when the resident said he was going to find a pen and paper to write down their details and latterly, not reporting the error. This behaviour was profoundly unprofessional and unacceptable. Thirdly, there was the failure to sufficiently investigate what had happened.
34. The landlord acknowledged its failings in its stage two decision and its offer of compensation was reflective of the resident’s experience due to its poor handling of the issue. However, it failed to address the matter of its poor handling of the resident’s formal complaint. Its stage decision did not also go far enough in discussing its shortcomings in dealing with the issue. This aspect of the case is discussed in the paragraphs below.

Complaint handling 

35. Responding to a complaint is an opportunity for the landlord to demonstrate that it has heard and understood the concerns raised and a chance to put things right. In its response to the complaint, the landlord did not acknowledge a number of the resident’s queries and concerns, including his question as to why the landlord had not pursued the avenue of enquiry with regards to the staff member he recognised and why the locks had been changed without the operatives first checking whether anyone was at home. In not doing so, the resident was left without answers, which served to exacerbate his frustration and contribute to the further breakdown of the landlord-tenant relationship.
36. Turning to timeliness, the landlord’s response to the complaint was delayed at both stages one and two, taking around five months to process through the landlord’s complaints process, set against its policy of aiming to respond to complaints within 10 working days at stage one and 20 working days at stage two. While some complaints may take longer to investigate than others, the complaint took a disproportionately lengthy time to investigate and it is not clear why it took this long, given the investigation that took place.
37. The landlord’s apology and offer of compensation was appropriate, although it did not reflect the gravity of the situation or level of service failure. Moreover, a complaint gives an opportunity for the landlord to learn from its mistakes and to take steps to help prevent a recurrence. There is no information as to what tangible actions the landlord has taken to do this – the recurring issue of the resident receiving a text for works to a bathroom light he did not order, indicates that the root cause of the issue may not have been sufficiently resolved.

Determination (decision)

38. In accordance with paragraph 55(b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord has taken steps to reasonably redress its actions in erroneously changing the locks at the property and its subsequent investigation of the issue.
39. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure in respect of the landlord’s complaints handling.

Reasons

40. There was insufficient investigation of the issue which led to the error not being discovered for a number of months and the resident having to strenuously pursue a fair outcome. However, the amount offered by the landlord in compensation recognised its failings in handling this issue.
41. The complaint responses were delayed at both stages one and two, which also did not address the resident’s questions nor sufficiently demonstrate lessons learned. Consequently, the level of compensation was insufficient given the gravity of the issues.

Orders

42. The landlord to pay the resident £100 compensation for the service failure identified in respect of its complaints handling.
43. This compensation is in addition to the £150 previously offered.
44. The landlord to confirm compliance with the above orders within four weeks of the date of this report.

Recommendations

45. The landlord should strongly consider carrying out a lessons-learned exercise in respect of the findings identified.