Poplar Housing And Regeneration Community Association Limited (202100940)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202100940

Poplar Housing And Regeneration Community Association Limited

22 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’s handling of works required at the property, specifically, the resident is dissatisfied with delay to carrying out works regarding a kitchen fan and the landlord’s communication around this.
2. The complaint is also about the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background and summary of events

Policies and procedures

3. The landlord’s repairs policy states that it aims to carry out routine repairs within 14 days.
4. The landlord has a two-stage formal complaints procedure; a ‘resolve’ stage, where the landlord aims to contact a complainant within two working days of receipt of a complaint to discuss the issues and agree a timescale to investigate and respond and thereafter, where a complainant is dissatisfied with the outcome of their complaint, a ‘review’ stage, where a panel will convene to consider whether the remedy at the resolve stage was appropriate.  A timescale will be agreed with the complainant for this to take place.

Background

5. The resident has been an assured shorthold tenant of the landlord, at the property, from 6 September 2010. The property is a two-bedroom first floor flat.

Summary of events

6. On 12 September 2019, an Occupational Therapist (OT) recommended some adaptations to the property which the landlord received on 8 October 2019. These recommendations included enclosing the kitchen, installing a fire door with a digital door lock, installing an upgraded fan and installing a new wash hand basin.  The landlord applied for a Disabled Facilities Grant (DFG) on 13 November 2019 and on 20 January 2020, funding was approved.
7. The resident has said she chased the landlord as to the works on a number of occasions in April and May 2020 but the landlord did not call her back or email her about the works.  The resident has also said that her MP – who had contacted the landlord on her behalf – was advised by the landlord that it would be in touch with the resident but again did not get in contact.
8. On 28 October 2020, the resident made a complaint about outstanding works at the property, in particular, she was dissatisfied that the kitchen fan works remained outstanding, now that her kitchen was enclosed.  The resident described the impact on her of this not having been done, referring to feeling “claustrophobic” in the property as a result.  She added that her asthma had worsened due to the bathroom not having windows and the kitchen having been “closed up”. The resident referred to wanting to be rehoused, as this would resolve the issues.
9. In her complaint, the resident expressed her dissatisfaction with the landlord’s communication.  She said that she had been chasing the landlord for “eight months” regarding the issues and that her calls were never returned.  The resident made reference to a conversation she had had with the landlord in April 2020 about the impact of the situation on her and yet she was still waiting.
10. On 2 November 2020 operatives attended the property unannounced and the resident refused access because her children were at home.
11. On 11 November 2020, the landlord responded to the resident’s complaint.  It acknowledged that she had raised that the kitchen extractor fan was not fully working and associated the impact on her in April 2020.  It noted, however, that the resident had been shielding at the time and so works could not be undertaken.  It stated that its contractor would be in touch to resolve the issue with the fan.
12. The landlord added that it was aware that the resident’s preferred outcome was to be rehoused and that she had been in discussion with the lettings team in order to progress this. In terms of contact, the landlord apologised “if it had not been in contact since this time” and said that it would look into how this had happened and be in touch shortly.
13. On 17 November 2020, unrelated emergency works were carried out to the toilet and at the same time, the outstanding OT works to the sink were undertaken, which the resident was dissatisfied with because she was unaware of this being the case and was unhappy with the size of the basin.
14. On 23 November 2020, the resident requested escalation of her complaint. In particular, the resident stated she was dissatisfied with:
    1. The landlord’s complaint response being delayed.
    2. The lack of explanation for delay to the works being carried out, and;
    3. The detrimental impact the situation had had on her health, specifically, her asthma.
15. As resolution to her complaint, the resident wanted compensation and windows to be installed in the kitchen and bathroom, or alternatively, to be rehoused.
16. On 27 November 2020, the landlord telephoned the resident to discuss her complaint with her, which it followed up with an email.  In the email, the landlord confirmed it would cancel the appointment for the extractor fan works the following Thursday, due to the resident advising her family were currently isolating. 
17. In its response of 1 December 2020, the landlord apologised for “shortcomings” in its communication and assured the resident that the process of carrying out repairs would run smoothly going forwards.
18. On the same date, in a telephone conversation with the resident, the landlord confirmed the outstanding works with her as follows:
    1. Missing door handle.
    2. Balcony jack lock.
    3. Kitchen door lock and decorating.
    4. Bathroom basin.
    5. Kitchen fan.
19. This was followed up in an email where it was agreed that due to the family currently isolating, appointments would be made for 16, 17 and 18 December 2020 and operatives would ensure timings worked around the school run.
20. The landlord acknowledged a lack of communication on its part and explained that it would be taking action with regards to the lack of communication and clarity of communication of its staff but would be unable to disclose specific details. It noted again that the resident’s ultimate aim was to move property and it advised that she was in the highest medical priority band and was regularly bidding. The landlord said it would be in touch with a panel review meeting date to consider the complaint further.
21. On 12 January 2021, the resident contacted the landlord having still not heard as to when the panel would be convening to consider her complaint and reiterated that she wanted to be rehoused. On the same date, the landlord apologised for the delay.
22. On 26 January 2021, the resident contacted the landlord to advise that she was now shielding again and that having the works completed would no longer benefit her health. The resident again asked for compensation and to be rehoused.
23. On 23 February 2021, the landlord’s panel met online to review the complaint.  The complaint was not upheld. The landlord found that the delays in carrying out the OT works were attributable to the “extraordinary circumstances” of Covid-19 and asked the resident to let it know once she was happy for workman to attend.  It noted the resident wanted to move property and reassured her she was a top priority candidate and that it was “only a matter of time” until she would be offered something suitable.  The resident responded on the same day, requesting to be moved.

Assessment and findings

Works and communication

24. Having received and agreed recommendations for works to be undertaken at the property, the landlord was required to carry them out within a reasonable period of time, in accordance with its obligations under the tenancy and in law. The law doesn’t specify what a reasonable period of time is; this depends on the individual circumstances of the case.  In this case, the landlord’s repairs policy states that the landlord aims to carry out non-urgent works within 14 days.
25. Moreover, in having had works recommended, agreed and approved, this gave rise to a reasonable expectation by the resident, that they would be undertaken within a reasonable period of time and she was waiting for this to happen and for next steps to be communicated.
26. The works were not carried out within a reasonable period of time and the landlord has explained that is due to the extraordinary circumstances of Covid-19 and as part of this, the resident’s shielding and isolating for periods of time, due to health vulnerabilities, which meant that works were unable to go ahead. That is not to say that delay was solely attributable to the resident, however, because it was not.
27. Covid-19 and the national lockdown did not permit for non-urgent works to be undertaken between March and May 2020 which accounts for the delay in this period but not before or after.  Whilst the situation of the pandemic undoubtedly caused a backlog of works, there is no evidence that this, or any other reason was communicated or explained to the resident. Notwithstanding the objective uncertainty in the world at that time, this lack of explanation and contact left the resident with further avoidable uncertainty.
28. While the works constituted ‘minor’ adaptation works, it is clear that the impact on the resident was not minor, with her referring to feeling “claustrophobic” as a result of the kitchen being compartmentalised, without having an upgraded fan installed; something that was exacerbated by the bathroom also not having windows.
29. In its contact with the resident, the landlord missed the opportunity to sufficiently acknowledge this and express its empathy for the situation. The landlord did acknowledge and address the resident’s wish to move property, however, it remained obliged to undertake works, explain any reasons for delay and manage expectations, while the resident remained residing there, which it did not do.
30. Although this Service does not have evidence of all of the resident’s contact with the landlord, chasing it as to the works, the landlord has acknowledged its poor communication and clarity of communication, apologising for this and reassuring her that it will take action.  It has also acknowledged the conversation in April 2020 and although the resident may have been shielding at the time, there is no evidence to suggest the landlord contacted the resident to check thereafter, or a plan put in place once the situation changed. Indeed, the resident has referred to contact later, in May 2020, which went unresponded to.
31. It is clear from the documentation provided to this Service that the resident has been shielding and isolating for periods of time, but that is not to say that this was at all times and the landlord has acknowledged that it could have done better in its contact with the resident and would ensure things run smoother in future.

Complaint handling

32. The landlord responded to the complaint on three separate occasions, although its policy refers to a two-stage complaint procedure. Nonetheless, the complaint responses were delayed, most notably at the panel review stage, which took almost three months to arrange, following the landlord’s contact of 1 December 2020, where it said it would be in touch to confirm a date.
33. Although Covid-19 may have led to logistical problems in convening a panel, the panel met online, which would have made it simpler and it met in the absence of the resident, who communicated in advance she would not attend, meaning there were fewer individuals to work around.  There is evidence of the resident having to chase the landlord again to receive an update as to her complaint, which indicates a lack of learning from its earlier shortfalls in communication at this point in time.
34. Learning from complaints is fundamental in improving services and resident experiences and demonstrates that a matter has been taken seriously. While the landlord indicated it had taken matters seriously in explaining that it would be speaking to its staff about communication issues identified, it did not demonstrate an improvement in its complaint handling thereafter.
35. Finally, responding to a complaint, as previously stated, is an opportunity for a landlord to demonstrate that it has heard and understood the complaint and take steps to put things right.  The landlord did not address some of the resident’s queries, including why the complaint response was delayed, nor did it acknowledge or address her requests to have windows built into the bathroom and kitchen.  Although this arguably could have been a disproportionate remedy, the landlord did not acknowledge the request or explain its assessment or response to this, which served to aggravate the situation and did not go towards seeking to repair the landlord-tenant relationship.

Determination (decision)

36. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure in respect of the complaint about the works and communications.
37. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure in respect of the landlord’s complaint handling.

Reasons

38. There was service failure in respect of the works and communication, insofar as there was delay in carrying out recommended works, which the landlord did not sufficiently explain to the resident. The landlord did not communicate effectively, make contact or explain reasons for the delay or effectively manage expectations and agree a way forward.
39. There was service failure in respect of the landlord’s complaint handling, insofar as its responses were delayed and it did not demonstrate it had heard or understood the complaint, express sufficient empathy with the resident’s situation or that it had learned from earlier communication failures.

Orders

40. If not already done so, the landlord to ensure all outstanding works are undertaken within a reasonable period of time from the date on this report, ensuring that prior contact is made with the resident to clarify and schedule any outstanding works. As part of this, the landlord to address the resident’s query as to the possibility of window installation in the kitchen and bathroom.
41. The landlord to pay the resident £150 compensation, comprised of:
    1. £100 for the communication issues identified.
    2. £50 for the complaints handling failures identified.
42. The landlord to confirm compliance with the above orders within four weeks of this report.