Hyde Housing Association Limited (202105671)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202105671

Hyde Housing Association Limited

13 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 handling of:
   1. Work to the resident’s heating system.
   2. The resident’s concerns about staff conduct.

Background

2. The resident is the tenant of the landlord. She had a complaint concluded with it previously on 26 February 2019 about the conduct of its gas contractor’s operative (Mr A) who had carried out a gas safety check at her property in October 2018. The landlord’s final response acknowledged that an error had been made during the gas safety check which it had since rectified and relayed that Mr A apologised for any upset caused to the resident.
3. The resident raised a stage one complaint with the landlord, which it acknowledged on 12 February 2021, about appointments which had been missed or cancelled at short notice with no apology. She also voiced her dissatisfaction with Mr A’s conduct and requested that he not be sent to her property again. The landlord’s stage one complaint response on 2 March 2021 did not dispute the resident’s points of complaint but stated that its contractor had no evidence of either issue. However, it said that it had instructed its contractor not to send Mr A to her property in future but cautioned that this may have an impact on repair response times. The landlord noted that she had also expressed dissatisfaction with the removal of her gas fire. It explained that these were being phased out from all of its properties and apologised that it had not communicated effectively with her about this.
4. During the course of escalating her complaint to the final stage of the landlord’s process, the resident disputed that there was no evidence of missed appoints and held that there was evidence of Mr A’s conduct from her historical complaint. She said she had lost confidence in the contractor as it had lied to her several times. The resident asked for a different contractor to attend her gas repairs. The landlord, in its final complaint response on 1 June 2021, advised that it could not send a different contractor due to its contractual arrangements for the area. It confirmed the appointment for when it would remove the gas fire, noting that it had offered her a larger radiator which she had refused. The landlord said that there was no operative employed by the contractor which matched Mr A’s name and provided the contact details for the contractor’s senior manager, who had already attempted to contact the resident, to help to repair the relationship between herself and the contractor.
5. The resident informed this Service on 8 June 2021 that she continued to be dissatisfied with the landlord dispatching Mr A to her property despite it previously agreeing not to send him to the property and acknowledging that he had made a mistake with her previous gas safety inspection. On 27 July 2021 she confirmed that her desired resolutions to her complaint were for the landlord to agree not to send Mr A to her property and for it to agree to replace her gas fire.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

6. It is noted that part of the resident’s dissatisfaction stems from historical incidents which were addressed in a complaint which exhausted the landlord’s internal complaints procedure on 26 February 2019. Under the rules which govern our service, the Ombudsman cannot consider the historical issues as a complaint must be brought to the attention of this Service within 12 months of completing the landlord’s internal complaints procedure, unless there were exceptional circumstances which meant a complaint could not be brought within this timescale. This investigation will therefore focus on recent events leading up to the resident’s current complaint which was acknowledged by the landlord on 12 February 2021.

The landlord’s handling of work to the resident’s heating system.

7. Under the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985, the landlord must provide and maintain installations in the property for the provision of water and space heating. However, this does not stipulate that a secondary source of heating should be provided when one already exists. Therefore, there was no obligation by the landlord to replace the gas fire in the resident’s property as there was a central heating system in place.
8. The landlord should, however, ensure that the heating system provided is fit for requirements. The landlord provided evidence to show that it had carried out a heat/loss assessment of property on 23 February 2021 which found that the existing radiator in the front room of the resident’s property, where the gas fire was to be removed, was within acceptable limits for providing heating to the room. However, in response to the resident’s dissatisfaction, it arranged to fit a larger radiator, which was ultimately refused by the resident. The Ombudsman is not questioning the resident’s reasons for refusing the radiator. However, it was reasonable for the landlord to offer this as an alternative to the gas fire.
9. The Ombudsman does not doubt the resident’s testimony concerning missed appointments. However, as an independent and impartial arbiter of complaints, we can only base our decisions on the evidence provided by the landlord and the resident. We cannot conclude that the landlord has done something wrong unless there is evidence to confirm this. There was no evidence that repair appointments had been missed by the landlord, and the resident did not provide the dates on which these were missed. No evidence has been provided to this Service of the dates on which appointments were not kept. Given that the resident’s and the contractor’s accounts conflicted, and there was no evidence to support either party’s statements, it was reasonable that the landlord apologised for the resident’s experience. However, the landlord should consider improving its management of contractors so that it has better oversight of their appointments with residents, allowing any future disputes can be clarified quickly.
10. There was no evidence that the resident was without heating at any point, or that her heating system needed repair. There was confusion during the week prior to 26 April 2021 when three separate operatives attended the property and provided conflicting information on the reason why the larger radiator was being offered and whether the existing gas fire could be used. However, this was clarified promptly by the landlord on 26 April 2021, when it reiterated its policy of removing existing gas fires from all its properties. Therefore, there was no evidence of a failure by the landlord in its handling of repairs to the resident’s heating system. It complied with its legal obligations and offered to install a larger radiator for her in excess of its legal obligations.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns over staff conduct

11. The landlord’s contractors’ code of conduct states that contractors working on its behalf must be considerate and respectful to residents, deliver excellent resident service, and will hold themselves to the highest possible standards. When the landlord receives a report about staff conduct, it would be expected to carry out an investigation of the matter and provide its findings to the resident in a timely manner. Where the staff member is a contractor, it is still the landlord’s responsibility to investigate as the contractor is the landlord’s representative and the contractor is required to comply with the landlord’s code of conduct.
12. The landlord, in its stage one complaint response to the resident on 2 March 2021, relayed that its contractor had advised that it had not received any negative reports from others about Mr A but would ensure that he would not attend her property in the future. Its final complaint response on 1 June 2021 was inconsistent with its response at stage one, in that it relayed that its contractors had said that there was no operative whose name corresponded to Mr A’s.
13. The Ombudsman has been provided with evidence that, in its correspondence with the landlord on 26 February 2021, the contractor identified an operative who bore a similar name, suggesting that this was the person the resident had complained about. There was no evidence that this was followed up on or that any investigation was carried by either the landlord or the contractor to confirm if this was indeed the operative which she was dissatisfied with. Had this been done, it would have been able to further investigate the resident’s reports of staff conduct and provide a clearer and more accurate response.
14. The resident had a reasonable expectation that staff sent to her property by the landlord acted in accordance with its contractor code of conduct, and its investigation into Mr A could have provided reassurance to her of the standard of service she could expect. It was therefore unreasonable that the landlord did not carry out a full investigation and this was a failure on its part to ensure that the staff representing it were upholding its service standards. This is especially because the resident had reported not wanting Mr A to attend her property but he had done so in spite of reassurances that he would not.
15. The resident informed the landlord, in her final stage complaint escalation request on 9 March 2021, that she had lost confidence in its gas contractor. The landlord’s complaint acknowledgment, on 29 March 2021, noted further information from her which conveyed that she felt “victimised” by the contractor because of her historical complaint and she had asked if another contractor could attend instead for future repairs. While the resident reported being unjustly treated by the contractor, there was no evidence or information of how this had occurred. It was a reasonable response from the landlord, in its final response to her, to advise that its contractual relationships prevented using a different gas contractor for her property. It was also reasonable for it to propose that she speak directly with the contractor to address the issues which had caused her to lose confidence in it.
16. In its final response, the landlord provided the contact details for its contractor’s senior manager, advising that they had already attempted to contact her to “try and rebuild the relationship”. While this was a reasonable proposal to address the resident’s lack of confidence, this was not a reasonable substitute for a robust investigation into the conduct of the contractor’s operative. Therefore, while the landlord did make efforts to repair the relationship between the resident and the contractor, it failed to investigate the resident’s reports of staff conduct from Mr A fully.
17. The Ombudsman’s remedies guidance (published on our website) provides for awards of between £50 and £250 for instances of service failure which had an impact on the resident but was of short duration and may not have significantly affected the overall outcome for the resident. Considering that the landlord had made some efforts to address the resident’s dissatisfaction with the contractor, compensation of £200 should be paid to the resident for the likely distress and inconvenience caused to her by the inconsistent handling of the investigation into her concerns.

Determination

18. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme:
    1. There was no maladministration by the landlord in its handling of repairs to the resident’s heating.
    2. There was maladministration by the landlord in its response to the resident’s concerns about staff conduct.

Orders

19. Within 28 days, the landlord should pay the resident compensation of £200 for the inconsistent handling of her concerns about staff conduct.

 Recommendations

20. The landlord should:
    1. Follow up on the contractor’s information about the staff member who may have been Mr A and confirm to the resident if his identify is confirmed.
    2. If Mr A’s identity is confirmed then the landlord should carry out an investigation into the resident’s reports of Mr A’s conduct.
    3. The landlord should review its procedures for managing its contractors to ensure that it has proper oversight of their communication and appointments with residents.