Plymouth Community Homes Limited (202102002)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202102002

Plymouth Community Homes Limited

10 May 2022

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 concerns regarding:
   1. the removal of his existing emergency contact details;
   2. arrangements for works relating to his shed door;
   3. arrangements for a gas safety inspection;
   4. contact from the landlord on 20 November 2020.

Background and summary of events

Background

2. The resident has been an assured tenant at the property of the landlord since 5 February 2014. The landlord is a registered provider of social housing.
3. At the time of the complaint, the landlord operated a three-stage complaint policy. The policy notes that the landlord will aim to provide a stage one response within 10 working days. A stage two response will be provided within 20 working days of an escalation. The third stage of the complaint policy is to convene a complaints panel to review the complaint.

Summary of events

4. The landlord has provided this service with copies of its internal communications from the period of the complaint. It is evident that in late July 2020, the resident requested that his mother be removed as his emergency contact on the landlord’s records. The landlord has provided an internal email dated 23 July 2020 instructing its records team to carry out this action. A further internal communication dated 20 November 2020 repeated the same request.
5. It is also evident that in or around August 2020, the resident reported that the door to his garden shed was in a poor state of repair. The landlord attended the resident’s property on or around 11 September 2020 and assessed the door. It subsequently advised the resident that its carpenter would attend on 1 October 2020 to repair the door.
6. On 23 November 2020, the resident received a letter from the landlord advising that his annual gas safety inspection was booked for 9 December 2020.
7. On 7 December 2020, the resident made a complaint, which included the following:
   1. Regarding the works to the shed door, the resident advised that he attempted to cancel this appointment over the telephone, but that he subsequently received a text advising that the carpenter was nevertheless attending. The carpenter did not show up, however.
   2. The resident then advised the landlord that due to his concerns about COVID-19, he wished to rebook the works for May 2021. The resident advised that he subsequently received unannounced visits on 23 October 2020 and 3 November 2020 from the landlord’s repair team seeking to inspect the works (which had not been carried out).
   3. The resident further advised that he received a further text on 4 November 2020 that the carpenter would attend on 5 November 2020. The resident attempted to cancel this visit, but the carpenter nevertheless attended his property the following day. The resident explained he had wished to cancel this appointment and sent him away.
   4. He subsequently contacted his housing officer to make a complaint. At this time, he also reported that his gutters needed clearing, to which the landlord advised it would carry this out on 2 December 2020. The resident advised that the gutters were actually cleared on 01 December 2020, but that he had not been there to witness it. He subsequently received a text requesting he provide feedback on the visit. The resident advised he was dissatisfied at receiving this text given that he was not present to witness the visit.
   5. The resident additionally advised that he had received a further text informing him that the landlord’s carpenter was now booked for 6 January 2021. The resident reiterated that he did not want the works to occur until May 2021 and requested that this appointment be cancelled.
   6. In a separate letter on the same date, the resident noted the landlord’s intention to carry out a gas safety inspection on 9 December 2020 but expressed his dissatisfaction that this was 12 weeks prior to the current gas safety certificate expiring (which was due to occur on 24 February 2021). He reiterated his concerns about COVID-19 and requested this appointment be cancelled and rebooked closed to the certificate expiry date.
8. On 8 December 2020, the resident received an updated gas safety inspection appointment confirmation for 19 February 2021.
9. The landlord provided a stage one response relating to the resident’s complaint about the gas safety inspection on 11 December 2020. It advised that despite gas safety certificates remaining valid for 12 months, it arranged gas safety inspections on a ten-month cycle, which it advised was standard in the industry. It confirmed it had rearranged the appointment at the request and that its staff would be wearing the appropriate PPE at the appointment.
10. It is evident that on or around 6 January 2021 the parties discussed the other complaints on the telephone, during which the resident raised further concerns about the removal of his mother as his emergency contact and noted that despite having made the request earlier in 2020, he had received a copy of the landlord’s internal correspondence noting it had actioned the request in November 2020. He also complained that a member of the landlord’s staff had telephoned him on 20 November 2020 despite his request that he not be contacted unless he initiated the contact. The resident advised he considered this to be a breach of his tenancy agreement by the landlord.
11. The landlord provided a stage one response regarding these new complaints on 8 January 2021, which noted the following:
    1. It noted that its response was outside of its target timeframe to provide a stage one response, for which it apologised.
    2. Regarding the resident’s emergency contact details, the landlord advised that it had actioned the resident’s request to remove them in July 2020, but that a duplicate request had been actioned on its system in November 2020, which the resident had been notified of. It apologised for the confusion this had caused the resident.
    3. Regarding the call from its staff on 20 November 2020, the landlord advised this had been in response to the resident’s reports to his housing officer on 5 November 2020 regarding his complaints and reports concerning his gutters. It therefore considered this to be a communication pursuant to the resident initiating contact. It also advised that while it always attempted to adhere to resident’s requests regarding contact, this was not always possible and was not a breach of the tenancy agreement.
    4. It concluded by explaining it had not intended to harass the resident and offered him a single point of contact at the landlord should he desire in order to not overwhelm him with contact from different departments.
12. On 14 January 2021, the landlord provided an additional stage one response addressing the remaining complaints. The response included the following:
    1. Regarding the texts received by the resident about the carpenter attending his property in October 2020 despite having cancelled the appointment, the landlord apologised for the “mix up.” It noted that it did not have records of the attendances to operatives on 23 October 2020 and 3 November 2020 but noted the attendance of a further operative on 5 November 2020. It subsequently apologised for “mix-up with appointment dates.” It confirmed the works to the shed door had now been cancelled until May 2021.
    2. Regarding the satisfaction survey text received by the resident in relation to the gutter clearing appointment, the landlord noted the resident’s frustration, but advised this was an automated text and it had not intended to harass the resident. It advised it was hoping to update its system in the future to allow it to better control what texts were sent out.
    3. It also noted the resident’s concerns about delays with its telephone system and for responding to the resident, for which it apologised.
13. On 18 January 2021, the resident requested that his complaints be escalated. The landlord subsequently provided its stage two response on 11 February 2021, which included the following:
    1. Regarding the removal of his mother as an emergency contact, it reiterated that it had actioned this when originally requested by the resident, but that a second internal request had been generated in error, which the resident was notified of. It reiterated its apology for this error.
    2. Regarding the call on 20 November 2020, it again reiterated this had been done pursuant to the resident’s reports on 5 November 2020 relating to his earlier complaints and was not intended to harass him. It noted that the resident had reported its staff had sounded condescending on the telephone, and that it had subsequently raised this with its member of staff, who apologised if they sounded this way as it was not their intention.
    3. Regarding its gas safety check appointment, it advised this had not been booked early to harass him, but that it often booked appointments well in advance of the expiry of the previous gas safety certificate, especially where the Christmas holiday period could cause staff shortages. It reiterated the appointment was then rebooked at the resident’s request. The landlord also noted the resident’s concerns that the appointment letter had been sent in a hand-written envelope as opposed to the usual printed envelope. It advised that it had previously used an external company which printed envelopes, but it no longer used this company leading it to hand write its envelopes.
    4. Regarding the appointments related to the works to his shed door, the landlord reiterated its position in its stage one response. It also reiterated its apology for the resident’s difficulty in getting through to it on the telephone.
14. On 4 March 2021, the resident expressed his dissatisfaction with the landlord’s response. Regarding the mix up with appointments for his shed door, the resident advised it was his understanding that the landlord could track its operatives and their vehicles, and that its investigation into why operatives had attended was insufficient.
15. It is evident that the landlord previously made enquires as to the resolution the resident was seeking, but this had not been answered. Following the resident’s further expression of dissatisfaction, given that it was not clear what resolution the resident was seeking, it would not be appropriate to convene a panel review hearing, and it instead advised that the resident refer his complaint to this service.

Assessment and findings

Emergency contact details

16. As noted above, this service has been provided with the landlord’s internal communications, which demonstrate that the landlord arranged for the resident’s emergency contact details to be amended in July 2020. It is not evident that the landlord followed up with the resident at this time to confirm this had occurred, which would have been helpful.
17. Following the resident’s complaint, the landlord appropriately confirmed in its stage one response that it had actioned the resident’s request in July 2020. It noted it had sent a duplicate request to its team in November 2020, however, it did not explain what led this duplicate being sent. While such an explanation would have been helpful, this did not amount to service failure, and it was reasonable that it explained it was an error and offered an apology for the confusion.

Works to shed door

18. Following the resident’s reports regarding the state of disrepair of his shed door, the landlord appropriately arranged for an inspection. Based on that inspection, it also appropriately arranged for a further appointment for the necessary works to be completed. It is evident that the resident subsequently requested the further appointment be cancelled. While the landlord’s carpenter did not attend the appointment, its automated text alerting of their attendance was still sent. This would have caused confusion and frustration for the resident.
19. It is also evident that a follow up inspection remained booked, for which there were two further visits. The landlord has advised it has no record of these visits (it has provided this service with maintenance records which do not list the visits), which further demonstrates it failed to correctly cancel the works on its system. It appears evident that this, in turn, caused a further appointment to be arranged, contrary to the resident’s wishes, and for a third operative to attend. Again, this would have caused confusion and frustration for the resident.
20. Following the resident’s complaint, the landlord appropriately confirmed the works had now been postponed until May 2021, as per the resident’s request. It also appropriately apologised for the “mix up” with its appointments. In the circumstances, given the resident’s concerns about COVID-19, the repeated unscheduled appointments amounted to service failure. While frustrating for the resident, there is no evidence this was done maliciously by the landlord, or that it was intended to harass the resident, and the overall impact was low. In the Ombudsman’s opinion, the landlord’s apology amounted to reasonable redress for its service failure.
21. While the resident has indicated his dissatisfaction with the landlord’s investigation, in particular, that it did not use its supposed ability to track its operatives, the Ombudsman considers that such steps would not be proportionate to the impact of the service failure, and its explanation that it was an error, and its subsequent apology were sufficient in the circumstances.

Gas safety inspection

22. The Ombudsman does not consider carrying out a gas safety inspection at any time prior to the expiry of the current gas safety certificate to be service failure. In this instance, the landlord sent reasonable prior notification of its intention to carry out an inspection in December 2020, and it is not evident that this was done to harass the resident.
23. Following the resident’s expression of dissatisfaction that the landlord intended to carry out the inspection, the landlord appropriately explained it was common practice to do this and also appropriately rearranged the gas safety inspection to closer to the expiry of the gas safety certificate. It subsequently provided the resident with reasonable notice of this new inspection date, which it reiterated in its formal responses.
24. Given that the resident escalated the complaint, the landlord also provided appropriate further context by explaining it was concerned about capacity following the Christmas holiday period and so had initially intended to carry out the inspection sooner but had changed this at the resident’s request.
25. The landlord also provided a reasonable explanation in relation to the resident’s concerns about its hand-written envelope and appropriately clarified it had not intended to harass the resident.

Contact from landlord

26. It is not disputed that the resident had previously requested not to be contacted by the landlord unless he initiated contact. The Ombudsman would expect the landlord to make reasonable adjustments and implement contact requests where possible. The Ombudsman notes, however, that it is reasonable for landlords to need to contact residents from time to time and this would not be considered a breach of the tenancy agreement.
27. It is evident that throughout November 2020, the resident had been in contact with the landlord regarding the erroneous attendances of its operatives in relation to the shed door works. He had also reported that his guttering required clearing.
28. In its complaint responses, the landlord appropriately explained that it had contacted the resident pursuant to these earlier communications. It also appropriately measured the resident’s expectations by explaining that despite his contact preferences, it may need to contact him from time to time. The landlord also appropriately offered the resident the option of having a single point of contact so as not to overwhelm him. In summary, the landlord’s response was reasonable and also demonstrated a commendable concern for ensuring the resident’s reasonable adjustments were met.
29. Regarding the clearing of the guttering, while the Ombudsman understands that it would have been frustrating to have received a follow up text for works he was not present for, this error would not constitute service failure as it had minimal impact on the resident. The landlord’s explanation that this was an automated text and apology was a reasonable response to this element of the complaint.
30. The Ombudsman notes that the landlord’s complaints policy states it will aim to provide a stage one response within 10 working days. It is evident that the resident expressed his complaints to the landlord across a number of pieces of correspondence, and so it was reasonable for the landlord to provide its responses across several stage one responses. While the last of these was provided beyond the target timeframe in its complaints policy, it is evident that the landlord had been in continued communication with the resident and had also attempted to call him to discuss the complaints. It was therefore reasonable that the landlord offered an apology for this delay, which did not amount to service failure in the circumstances.

Determination (decision)

31. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was no maladministration by the landlord in respect of the complaints regarding:
    1. the removal of the resident’s existing emergency contact details;
    2. arrangements for a gas safety inspection;
    3. contact from the landlord on 20 November 2020.
32. In accordance with paragraph 55(b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, and in the Ombudsman’s opinion, there was reasonable redress offered by the landlord for its service failure in respect of the complaints regarding arrangements for works relating to the resident’s shed door.

Reasons

Emergency contact details

33. While the landlord’s erroneous repeated instruction to its records team to delete the resident’s existing emergency contact details would have caused confusion for the resident, it is evident that the landlord also actioned this request in July 2020, and its apology for the confusion caused was sufficient in the circumstances.

Works to shed door

34. It would have been frustrating for the resident to have had multiple operatives attend his property despite him cancelling the appointment, which amounted to service failure in the circumstances. Given that the impact of this was low, and that the works were subsequently correctly arranged, the landlord’s apology amounted to reasonable redress.

Gas safety inspection

35. The landlord’s attempts to arrange the gas safety inspection was reasonable, and it appropriately explained its reasons in its formal response. It also appropriately rearranged the inspection to suit the resident’s preferred dates.

Contact from landlord

36. While the Ombudsman would expect a landlord to adhere to any contact preferences of a resident where possible, there will be instances where it is necessary to contact a resident. Given that the resident had raised various concerns, it was reasonable for the landlord to contact the resident to discuss these and there is no evidence this was intended to be harassment. The landlord also appropriately offered the resident a single point of contact to alleviate any distress.
37. While the landlord’s final stage one response was beyond the timeframes in its policy, the landlord had remained in communication with the resident and its apology was reasonable in the circumstances.