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

One Vision Housing Limited (202100235)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202100235

One Vision Housing Limited

18 November 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 regarding the landlord’s response to the resident’s request for additional works following the installation of a new washing line.
  2. The Ombudsman has also considered how the landlord responded to the resident’s complaint.

Background and summary of events

Background

  1. The resident holds an Assured Shorthold Tenancy with the landlord, a Housing Association. She had resided in the property, which is a one-bed, ground floor flat since March 2019.

Summary of Events

  1. Landlord records show that, on 24 May 2019, it received a report from the resident that the communal rotary washing line was broken. The landlord raised an order to ‘attend and repair/replace’. The landlord’s repair records show that it attended on 29 May 2019 but was unable to gain access, so the order was cancelled. However, its operative noted that they ‘can’t see where the clothes post can go’ so passed the matter on to another member of staff to contact the resident and discuss the matter further.
  2. Landlord repair records indicate that the landlord re-raised the previous job to assess the communal washing line on 11 September 2019, but the resident was not at home. However, the landlord noted that the ‘washing line is fixed to the wall and working’ but that the resident ‘wants a rotary line fitting’. The operative noted they did not think there was enough room for a rotary line ‘to be safely operated’ and suggested the landlord would have to advise how to progress the matter.
  3. Landlord records note that there was a public meeting with tenants on the resident’s estate on 5 November 2019. At this meeting, records show the resident’s Surveyor met with her and agreed to further inspect the washing line that was in place and assess whether a new one could be installed. After returning as agreed on 15 November 2019, the landlord noted the resident’s concern regarding the existing wall mounted washing line and agreed, as a goodwill gesture, that the landlord would supply a rotary washing line ‘next to the path at the side of the (resident’s) block’. A new rotary washing line was subsequently installed to the communal area by the resident’s property on 21 November 2019.
  4. On 12 February 2020, landlord records show the resident contacted it to discuss ‘fencing off (the) rotary line’ and a message was left for its Surveyor to call the resident back. Landlord records indicate it attempted to call the resident back without success but there is no record of whether it subsequently tried again.
  5. Subsequently, on 22 July 2020, records show that the resident contacted the landlord again as she was ‘not happy’ with the washing line that had been installed in November 2019. Following a conversation with the Neighbourhood Officer, the landlord agreed to fit a new, ‘more heavy duty’ rotary washing line. This was installed on 30 July 2020.
  6. On 8 October 2020, records show the resident contacted the landlord to enquire ‘if authorisation had been given for a…fenced off area’ (around the washing line). The landlord responded the same day and advised that, while the washing line had been installed, it would not be fenced off. Its records note that it stated the resident had been ‘made aware’ of this.
  7. The resident lodged a complaint regarding the landlord’s decision the same day. Landlord records of her call noted that she stated it was ‘not acceptable as she no longer feels able to put washing out due to dogs being walked in the area…because no fencing is in place’. The landlord wrote to the resident to acknowledge the complaint and a few days later, the resident raised a further complaint with the landlord, this time via email. In her email, the resident:
    1. Acknowledged that the landlord had installed a washing line after the meeting in November 2019 but that the first one installed had been substandard.
    2. The washing line had been installed on a patch of grass used by other residents and people who allow their dogs to foul the area, which she stated was unhygienic.
    3. Advised that she had been told in February 2020 that her Neighbourhood Officer had advised that ‘there would be work carried out to tarmac the area and the fence to be repositioned to cage (the washing line) off’. She also stated that she had been told in April 2020 that the work was on hold due to working constrictions caused by the coronavirus pandemic.
    4. Stated she was unhappy that she had now been advised that the work would not be taking place, noting that ‘95% of the community’ benefitted from ‘adequate washing lines which are caged into the side/back of their property’ and that the landlord had a ‘duty of care’ to supply suitable features. 
  8. The landlord provided its Stage One complaint response on 21 October 2020. It did not uphold the resident’s complaint and advised it was satisfied that while it had agreed to arrange the fitting of a new washing line ‘as a goodwill gesture’, it had not agreed to ‘reposition the fence around the new washing line or tarmac/pave the area’. It stated this was because such a step would have had to be discussed and agreed ‘with other members of company’ and because the communal area in question was managed by its Grounds Maintenance teams and ‘any sectioned off areas would restrict access for them to effectively carry out their duties’. However, it also acknowledged the resident’s comments about the condition of the new washing line and advised it would raise an order for this to be inspected and to check that it had been installed correctly.
  9. The resident contacted the landlord on 29 October 2020 and requested that her complaint be escalated to the next stage of its complaint procedure. Landlord records note that she had stated she had been in touch with the landlord’s Tenant Mediation Panel, but they had advised her to escalate her complaint.
  10. The landlord provided its Stage Two response on 9 November 2020 and confirmed that it was not upholding the resident’s complaint. It noted that it was happy with the ‘information and response’ it provided to her at Stage One and clarified that it would not be fencing off the area where the new washing line had been installed as it was ‘a shared communal garden’. It also advised that it had further spoken with its Asset Team and the resident’s Neighbourhood Services Officer, both of whom reiterated their position that the resident had not been advised a fence would be erected once a new washing line had been installed.
  11. Subsequent landlord records show it received correspondence from its Tenant Mediation Panel on 10 February 2021 which noted that while the resident believed the landlord had advised her it would carry out work to tarmac and fence off the area around the washing line and the landlord denied this was the case, it ‘cannot be proved one way or the other’. The panel suggested ‘it would not be able to help (the resident) get a solution’ and that she should therefore take her complaint to this Service.
  12. On 14 February 2021, the resident submitted a further complaint. However, on 24 February 2021, the landlord responded and advised that, as per its complaints policy, it would not re-investigate her concerns regarding the area around the washing line and referred her to its previous complaint response from November 2020. It reminded her of her right to contact this Service if she remained unhappy with its responses.

Assessment and findings

  1. It is not in dispute that there is disagreement between the parties regarding whether the resident was told by the landlord that it would undertake further works to tarmac the area around the newly installed washing line, and/or adjust the fencing to ‘cage’ or fence off the washing line. However, as these discussions took place in person or over the phone and there are differing accounts of the conversations, the Ombudsman is not able to determine exactly what was said and when. What the Ombudsman can do is review the evidence provided to this investigation by both parties and use that as a basis for determining whether the landlord responded appropriately to the concerns the resident raised and whether it acted reasonably in its responses.
  2. Information provided to this investigation by the landlord includes notes made by its Surveyor following the meeting with the resident in November 2019. The Surveyor noted that ‘I agreed as a good will gesture to fit a rotary washing line next to the path at the side of the block. I explained to (the resident) it (the washing line) would be outside the fence and that extending the existing fence was not a repair I was prepared to authorise.’ The landlord’s actions following the resident’s initial request appear to have been reasonable. It was positive that it took a proactive step by agreeing to install a new washing line as a goodwill gesture, while it also appeared to be trying to manage the resident’s expectations regarding further works.
  3. However, this Service acknowledges that, from the concerns raised in her complaint, and the information available to this investigation, the resident remained of the opinion that the landlord had not ruled out carrying out further works. As above, landlord records show that the resident contacted it in February 2020 to ask for an update on whether the landlord would be carrying out further work but it is not clear whether it responded to her. It is also noted that the resident has included a copy of her tenancy records within her submissions to this investigation, presumably obtained via a Service Access Request. Within her tenancy records, the resident has highlighted entries made by the landlord on her Customer Relationship Management (CRM) account from February 2020 which indicate that the landlord was still looking into the issue, in particular:
    1. An entry dated 18 February 2020 which noted: ‘(the surveyor) has said he has no update over fencing at the moment and it might be after the new year but will call customer back’.
    2. An entry dated 25 February 2020 which noted: ‘confirmed that (the surveyor) had called to say the fencing will be sorted when bin area identified’.
  4. Although the latter note does not make clear whether the landlord was recording that it had contacted the resident and provided an update, or if it was noting that the resident herself had contacted it and claimed that its surveyor had contacted her, the entries suggest that the landlord had in fact advised the resident it was looking into the issue further. Even if it had not, the landlord should have recognised that the resident was not clear on its position regarding her request and used the opportunity to clarify with her that it would not be carrying out any further works. This would have saved her a degree of confusion and uncertainty as well as her time and trouble in chasing it for updates, as its records show she did on several occasions until she logged her complaint in October 2020.
  5. Internal landlord correspondence seen by this investigation also indicates that the landlord had at one stage advised the resident it would look into whether it could carry out further works as she had requested. In an email dated 13 October 2020, sent as part of its complaint investigation, the landlord’s Neighbourhood Officer advised he ‘did not say for definite that we would be able to tarmac and fence off…I did say we would be out to look at the possibility of fencing off but nothing was definite’. Although no mention is made of when this exchange took place it is evidence that, while the landlord initially advised it would not carry out additional works, at some stage it did advise the resident that it would look into the issue further. However, there is no evidence that it then provided her with either an update or a final decision until she contacted it again in October 2020, at which point it confirmed it would not be carrying out any further works, prompting her complaint. This was not appropriate, and the landlord will have caused the resident confusion by not providing clarity regarding whether it would agree to her requested works. It was also not appropriate that it did not follow up with her when she contacted it to ask for updates.
  6. However, while the landlord should have communicated its position better, it was entitled to make the decision to not carry out additional works, either by tarmacking the area around the new washing line or by making any adjustments to the fencing on the communal area and its decision to not do so was reasonable. It had agreed to install a new washing line – as requested by the resident herself – as a goodwill gesture and, at least initially, appears to have been clear that it would not carry out any further work. It was a positive step that the landlord agreed to install a new washing line, and then agreed to install a further, more ‘heavy duty’ one, when the resident expressed dissatisfaction with the one initially provided. As the new washing line was provided as a goodwill; gesture at the landlord’s discretion, while there is a reasonable expectation that the landlord will maintain it, it was not obliged to carry out any additional works or further works to the communal area.
  7. While it was not under any obligation to carry out the additional work requested by the resident, the landlord could have been clearer when it advised her why it would not do so. In its Stage One complaint response, it advised it would not undertake further works as it ‘would need to be discussed and agreed with other members of company (sic)’ and because any ‘sectioned off areas’ would hinder the work of its Grounds Maintenance teams who managed the area. Later, in its Stage Two complaint response, the landlord advised that it ‘will not be fencing this area off as it’s a shared communal garden’. The reasons given by the landlord, while not unreasonable in themselves, appear inconsistent. The reasons it gave should have been expressed more clearly and consistently to avoid any potential confusion for the resident. 
  8. While this Service does appreciate the resident raised concerns regarding the area by the new washing line being uneven and prone to dog fouling, and that she would clearly find this unpleasant, this investigation has not seen evidence to suggest that the location of the new washing line is unsafe or inaccessible.
  9. Regarding the landlord’s overall handling of the resident’s complaint, after logging her appeal in October 2020, it responded promptly and in accordance with its Complaints and Appeals policy, acknowledging her complaint and responding promptly. It also escalated her complaint when requested, again acknowledged her request, and responded promptly and appropriately advised her of her right to approach its Tenants Mediation Panel and this Service if she remained unhappy with the outcome of her complaint. It was also entitled to decline to investigate the resident’s subsequent complaint made in February 2021, noting that it substantially related to the same issue as her previous complaint.
  10. However, in the Ombudsman’s opinion the landlord’s responses at Stage One and Stage Two are brief and, as noted above in paragraph 23, while it was entitled to decline her request to carry out further work, it did not provide a consistent reason as to how it reached its decision. They also did not adequately address all the concerns the resident raised. While the landlord’s complaint responses reasonably clarified that it did not at any point advise the resident it would carry out any additional works, the resident stated that she believed she had been advised in early 2020 that the landlord was still looking into her request. Despite this, the landlord’s response did not refer to the fact that a member of staff acknowledged during its complaint investigation that they had advised the resident they would ‘look into’ her request. This was not appropriate and, by not referring to this information, the landlord’s response lacked important context and therefore did not treat the resident fairly. The landlord did not acknowledge that its records indicated it had told the resident it would look into the issue, as she had claimed, and that there was subsequently a significant delay in providing her with a final decision. This omission meant the landlord missed an opportunity to put things right, in accordance with the Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles.

Determination (decision)

  1. In accordance with Paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure regarding:
    1. The landlord’s response to the resident’s request for additional works following the installation of a new washing line.
    2. How the landlord responded to the resident’s complaint.

Reasons

  1. The landlord acted reasonably by agreeing to install a new washing line as a goodwill gesture following a request from the resident and it was also positive that it further agreed to install a better-quality washing line following a further request. The landlord was also entitled to ultimately decline the resident’s further request to carry out additional works to the external communal area (tarmacking the area and/or adjusting the fence) and there is no evidence to suggest that its decision was unreasonable.
  2. However, while its records suggest it initially acted appropriately when advising the resident it would not agree to carry out further works and sought to manage her expectations accordingly, there is evidence that suggests it did advise her that it would consider her request in a later conversation. It then failed to provide her with further updates regarding her request and there was an unreasonable delay in relaying its final decision despite her chasing it for a response.
  3. The landlord progressed the resident’s appeal against its decision appropriately through its Complaints and Appeals policy, providing prompt acknowledgements and responses. It also escalated her complaint appropriately and signposted her to its Tenant Mediation Panel and this Service. However, its responses were brief and did not provide a consistent reason for its decision to decline her request to carry out additional work. Its responses also did not fully address all the concerns the resident raised during the complaint process and did not acknowledge the fact that information obtained during its complaint investigation supported her claim that she had been advised that the it would ‘look into’ the issue for her.

Orders

  1. The landlord should pay the resident £100 compensation, consisting of:
    1. £50 for the delay in confirming whether it would carry out the additional works requested by the resident.
    2. £50 for the poor standard of its complaint response.
  2. The landlord should also contact the resident to apologise for not acknowledging that it had advised her it would look into her request further and for the delay in providing her with a response.
  3. The landlord should comply with these orders within four weeks of the date of this determination.