Bassetlaw District Council (202011591)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202011591

Bassetlaw District Council

27 April 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 complaints

The complaints are about:
1. The landlord’s handling of repairs at the property following a loss of electricity.
2. The landlord’s response to concerns raised by the resident in relation to:
  1. The conduct of its operatives and Covid-19 safety.
  2. Damage to goods within the property.
3. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s formal complaint.
4. The landlord’s decision not to offer compensation for damage to the resident’s goods.
5. The impact of the works on the resident’s family’s health and her husband’s ability to work.
6. The standard of the wiring at the property.

Jurisdiction

What we can and cannot consider is called the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. This is governed by the Housing Ombudsman Scheme. When a complaint is brought to the Ombudsman, we must consider all the circumstances of the case as there are sometimes reasons why a complaint will not be investigated.
After carefully considering all the evidence, complaints d, e, and f as detailed above, fall outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.
Paragraph 39(i) of the Scheme states that “the Ombudsman will not investigate complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion concern matters where the Ombudsman considers it quicker, fairer, more reasonable or more effective to seek a remedy through the courts, a designated person, other tribunal or procedure.”
In correspondence to the Ombudsman, the resident has advised that she is unhappy with the outcome of her insurance claim. While the resident’s disappointment with the decision is acknowledged, this is not a matter which the Ombudsman can investigate. This Service cannot investigate or overturn decisions relating to liability. The resident should appeal the decision with the landlord – or its insurer, if she has not done so already. If the resident remains dissatisfied with the outcome of her claim, she may wish to refer the matter to court.
The resident has explained that her husband’s COPD has worsened as a result of the “pollution” that was created during the works. The resident has also advised that her husband now only works two days a week, not four, owing to the deterioration in his condition. In correspondence to the landlord, the resident also advised that her daughter’s education was impacted as a result of the works and associated stress; she also explained that her son suffers from severe depression and anxiety. She says that she therefore wishes to claim compensation for a percentage of her husband’s wages, and the health of her family.
The resident’s concerns about her impact on the health of her family, and her husband’s associated loss of income is acknowledged. However, whether the resident’s family’s health has been impacted as a result of the electrical works would have to be decided by a court. This process would involve consulting a suitably qualified medical practitioner who could assess whether the works were likely to have caused a deterioration in health; and if so, to what degree. This is not an assessment which the Ombudsman can undertake. Similarly, a court could decide whether the resident’s husband’s ability to work has been affected by a worsening of his COPD, and whether this was directly attributable to the rewiring at the property. A court would also be best placed to decide what would be an appropriate figure to compensate for a loss of future earnings.
When referring her complaint to the Ombudsman, the resident raised concerns about the standard of the wiring at the property – specifically in relation to the consumer unit and “wiring loops”. Paragraph 39(a) of the Scheme states that “The Ombudsman will not investigate complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion are made prior to having exhausted a member’s complaints procedure, unless there is evidence of a complaint handling failure and the Ombudsman is satisfied that the member has not taken action within a reasonable timescale”.
While the resident’s concerns about the wiring are noted, the Ombudsman has not seen any evidence which shows that this complaint exhausted the landlord’s complaint procedure, or that it was raised during the course of the complaint. It follows that the Ombudsman cannot investigate the resident’s concerns in relation to this as part of this complaint. It is noted that the resident no longer resides at the property. However, if the resident remains concerned about this issue, she should refer the matter to the landlord as a new complaint. If the resident exhausts the landlord’s complaints procedure, but remains dissatisfied, she may refer the complaint to this Service.

Background and summary of events

The resident, and her husband, were tenants of the landlord’s property. They lived at the property with their son and daughter. The resident has advised that members of her family, including herself, suffer from medical conditions including COPD. Since the events complained of, the resident has moved to a new area and is no longer the tenant of a property belonging to the landlord.
On 5 November, the resident reported that they had no power or lighting throughout the property. The landlord attended on the same day to ensure that the property was made safe, and that there was power to the lighting throughout the property. On 6 November, landlord staff attended again, and during the attendance power was restored to the heating system, kitchen and landing sockets. However, it was identified that a full re-wire of the property would be required.
On 8 November, the resident made a formal complaint to the landlord as she was concerned about matters that had transpired since the repair was reported on 5 November. The resident said that:
1. The first electrician who attended the property initially wore a mask; however, he later returned without one and was talking to them without any protective wear on. The resident added that he did put the mask back on after being asked to.
2. The electrician had moved the dryer against a wall and was “banging and scraping” it. She raised concern that the electrician did not ask them to move the dryer, and they would have been happy to do so.
3. A second electrician entered without a mask on. He later placed a meter on her freezer and when she queried this, said that it had rubbers on the bottom. The resident said that she asked him to remove it, and his reply was that the freezer should have been covered.
4. After the first attendance, they were left without a working boiler and fewer working electrical sockets.
5. On 6 November, the electricians returned and decided that a nail that had been in the wall for over 10 years was the cause of the electrical fault. However, after making holes in the wall, they decided that the fault had not originated there.
6. The electrician had moved things in her daughter’s room and therefore contaminated them. If they had been told that the electricians needed to check certain areas, they could have moved the items for them. As no such requests were made, they had to spend time sterilising things.
7. She wished to ask if operatives attending the property could be asked to wear gloves and wear face coverings. She added that she would not ask for them to cover their faces, but would ask them to leave instead.
The landlord subsequently booked the rewiring job for 1 December. The resident was unhappy that the works could not commence sooner and contacted the landlord again on 18 November to complain. In her email she said:
1. She had expected the works to be carried out as a priority owing to the “poor condemned state of the electrics”.
2. The delay was causing stress and disruption to their lives. Their daughter was a college student and was unable to work in her room owing to the lack of power.
3. Her husband was working night shifts, and the situation was going to impact on his wellbeing.
In response, the landlord contacted the resident to discuss her concerns further. It also arranged for its electrical engineer to visit the property to see if a temporary source of power could be provided to the upstairs.
On 24 November 2020, the landlord responded to the complaint at stage one of its procedure. In its letter, it said:
1. Its records showed that on 5 November, the resident reported that she had no lights or power within the property.
2. An on-call electrician attended to make the electrics safe, and arranged to return the following day.
3. Owing to the nature of the electrical fault, the property was left without the use of the boiler overnight, and the only working socket was located in the kitchen. However, the electrician did ensure that they had the use of full lighting throughout the property.
4. On 6 November, two electricians attended the property and identified that there was a fault with the wiring and that there would need to be a full rewire of the property.
5. On 16 November, one of the landlord’s electrical engineers visited the property with its contractor to ascertain the full extent of the works required.
6. Arrangements were made for the works to commence on 1 December 2020.
7. It wished to apologise for the delay in arranging for the contractor to visit the property – and the delay in works commencing. It did not have the staffing resources to carry out the work itself and it therefore had to be contracted out.
8. To try to mitigate the time that the resident would be without power, it arranged for the engineer to see if he could get any further sockets to work. Unfortunately, he was unable to do so. However, the engineer did discuss the works with the resident and explained that the job could not commence earlier than 1 December.
9. The works were anticipated to last four days, and the contractor would liaise with the resident about what personal items would need to be moved once they were onsite.
10. In relation to the resident’s concerns about safety, it wished to assure her that they were not at risk whilst the electrics were only partially working. The safety devices fitted in the property had worked, and the fault was identified. The property had been made safe and the full rewire had been planned.
11. With regards to a lack of personal protective equipment used by the tradesmen, it wished to assure the resident that her concerns were being investigated in line with its internal procedures. However, owing to General Data Protection Regulations (GDPR), it was unable to provide her with any further information. However, it wanted to reassure the resident that the Housing Service was following Government guidelines in relation to Covid-19 advice.
12. The complaint had been partially upheld on the basis that the resident had been inconvenienced due to the timescale of the planned rewire; however, they had not been put at any risk.
13. If the resident remained dissatisfied, she could ask for a review under the Chief Executive stage of the complaint procedure.
The resident was unhappy with the landlord’s response and asked to escalate her complaint. In an email dated 27 November, the resident said she did not consider that her family, or their belongings, had been treated with respect. In addition, she was unhappy with the complaint response as numerous issues had not been mentioned, and “incorrect information” had been stated. The resident said that the landlord’s comments in relation to Government guidance having been followed were unacceptable, and there had been “major health risks” during the engineers’ attendance on 5 and 6 November. In addition, she thought that the health conditions of her family – including her own COPD and epilepsy – needed to be taken into consideration.
The rewiring work was subsequently completed on 4 December 2020.
The landlord issued a stage two response to the complaint on 15 December. In its letter, it said:
1. It acknowledged that the pandemic was an unsettling time for people; and the resident had described her household’s health concerns, which had undoubtedly added to her concerns about workmen visiting her property.
2. Its workforce and visiting staff had been working in accordance with a detailed Risk Assessment that was put in place at the start of the Covid-19 pandemic. This had been consistently reviewed in accordance with any changes in Government Guidance and restrictions.
3. Steps that had been taken included limiting work to emergency and urgent work only – for example, where there was risk to either the residents and/or the building.
4. The Risk Assessment provided details on the appropriate PPE and maintaining social distancing. All the workforce had been provided with face masks, gloves, overshoes and disposable over-suits together with an advisory about maintaining social distancing. In addition, the workforce carried hand-sanitiser and anti-bacterial wipes to clean down surfaces when they finished their work.
5. It had concluded its investigation and while it was sorry for any upset caused, from the account that had been given it had no reason to progress matters further. It was satisfied that internal procedures had been properly followed in reaching that view.
6. Despite its conclusions, its workforce had once again been reminded of the need for carrying out their duties safely, in accordance with its Risk Assessments and in line with government guidance.
7. With regards to the rewire of the property, it was satisfied that it did everything possible to complete the work in a timely manner.
8. On 5 November, in response to the initial report, it ensured that the electrics at the property were safe, and that light was restored throughout the property. On the following day, the electricians were able to restore power to the heating system, along with the kitchen and the landing sockets.
9. The electrical engineer attempted to restore power to more sockets but was unable to do so. The full rewire commenced on 1 December. The work was initially scheduled for 7 December; however, given the situation, the engineer arranged for the works to be brought forward by one week.
10. The engineer and contractor visited the resident to discuss the nature of the work with the aim of alleviating any concerns beforehand. In order to minimise any disruption, it was agreed with the resident that the wiring would be surface mounted and trunked instead of affecting any of the plaster work within the property. It was also agreed that the resident would move any belongings and furniture that the contractor needed moving to enable to them to do the work.
11. The works were completed within a four-day timetable which had been initially communicated and agreed with the resident.
12. It noted that the resident felt that they should have been decanted from the property to allow the works to take place. However, a decant to allow for a re-wire was not considered to be necessary as the works could be undertaken around the resident.
13. It noted that the resident’s request for compensation had been forwarded to its Insurance Officer, in line with its procedure. The procedure for insurance claims was separate to the complaint, and the relevant department would liaise with her directly.
14. In recognition of the upset and inconvenience caused to the resident in pursuing the complaint, it wished to offer £100 compensation as a gesture of goodwill.
The resident subsequently contacted the Ombudsman in January 2021 as she remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s response. She advised that she disagreed with the landlord’s view of the situation, and its reply to her complaint.

Assessment and findings

The electrical repairs

The landlord’s Repairs policy provides that a total loss of electricity constitutes an emergency and repairs should be completed – or the area made safe – within four hours of the report. A partial loss of power warrants an ‘urgent’ response, and repairs should be completed within three working days of the report.
The landlord initially responded to the resident’s report in line with its service standards. The landlord’s repair logs show that an attendance was made at the property during the afternoon on 5 November, and partial power was restored. The landlord’s records do not contain detail in relation to what the fault was, and why power could not be restored throughout the property. That it does not, is indicative of poor record keeping. Recording such information would have helped to ensure that the landlord had a clear audit trail in relation to the repair.
The landlord’s electricians returned to the property the next day. While they were able to restore power to the heating system, the supply to sockets throughout the property could not be restored. The electrics were subsequently condemned, and the landlord informed the resident that the property would need to be rewired. In line with the landlord’s repairs policy, steps should have been taken to carry out the necessary works within three working days of the resident’s report. However, the landlord was unable to schedule the rewiring works until the week commencing 1 December 2020 – 18 working days after the initial report.
When the resident raised concerns about the delay in works commencing, the landlord explained that the delay was owing to a shortage of staff. It also arranged a further attendance to see if power could be restored to more sockets; however, this was unsuccessful. While it was appropriate for the landlord to provide an explanation for the delay – and to see if anything further could be done to restore the power while the works were outstanding – it would have been reasonable to acknowledge the impact that this would have on the resident and her family and to offer some remedy to try to put right the inconvenience that they would have been caused as a result. That the landlord did not take such action was a failing in the circumstances.

Covid-19 safety

The landlord’s response to the concerns raised by the resident about Covid-19 safety was appropriate. It was reasonable for the landlord to explain its policy and process in terms of undertaking risk assessments. In addition to this, the Ombudsman has seen evidence which confirms that it investigated the resident’s concerns appropriately by obtaining a statement from the operatives.
The stage two response refers to an internal investigation, evidence of which has been provided to the Ombudsman. It was reasonable and appropriate for the landlord to speak with the electricians and to obtain their comments about what transpired over 5 and 6 November. It is acknowledged that the electricians have provided a different version of events to the resident; however, it would have been appropriate to explain this when responding to the complaint.
The landlord cited the provisions of GDPR within the complaint response and advised that these prevented it from disclosing any further information about its investigation. This was not entirely appropriate. While the landlord would not be expected to divulge the full details of its investigation, it would have been reasonable and appropriate for it to have provided the resident with some detail in relation to what its investigation entailed, and a summary of what the investigation had found.
It is further noted that whilst the operative maintain they did comply to all covid guidance, the landlord did provide its workforce with a reminder about carrying out duties safely, and in accordance with its risk assessment and Government guidance. This was reasonable action to take in the circumstances and would help to ensure that operatives and staff were continuing to follow the relevant guidance and taking appropriate precautions when attending residents’ homes.

Damage to goods

The resident raised concerns that goods within the property had been damaged during the rewiring works. When the landlord responded to the complaint, it informed the resident that the matter had been referred to its insurance officer. From the evidence that is available, it is not clear if the landlord’s insurance officer contacted the resident to obtain further details or evidence in relation to the claim prior to communicating the outcome.
However, the landlord wrote to the resident on 23 March 2021 and advised that it had sought comments from its internal staff regarding the works undertaken, and the steps that were taken to ask the resident to move items prior to the works commencing. It said that despite the resident’s photographs and allegations, it did not consider that its employees had failed to exercise reasonable care in its duties; and on that basis, it did not consider that any compensation was warranted.
The evidence provided to the Ombudsman does not detail what items were included in the resident’s claim. As such, it is not clear if the claim was in relation to the scraped dryer – which was referred to within the complaint correspondence alone – or if the resident claimed in relation to a number of items. However, in response to the resident’s concerns, the landlord advised that it had referred the matter to its insurance officer, in line with its procedure.
The Ombudsman has not been provided with any procedure which details the steps that should be followed in such circumstances. In addition, the landlord’s Corporate Complaints policy does not provide any further detail in relation to compensation claims and the actions that the landlord will take on receipt of such claims. However, in such circumstances, it would be reasonable to expect a landlord to consider a resident’s comments – and any evidence provided – and to conduct some level of investigation. This would include speaking with the members of staff – or contractors – who had attended the property; and to obtain their comments in relation to what had transpired and whether the items in question had been seen, or moved. If the issue of liability could not be determined, it would then be appropriate for a landlord to refer the matter to its insurer for such a decision to be made, or for it to refer the resident to their household insurer.
When the landlord communicated the outcome of the claim, it did not make it clear whether the decision had been reached internally by the insurance officer, or if the matter had been considered by its insurer. It would have been appropriate for the landlord to clearly explain who had considered the claim, and to provide the resident with information about how to appeal the decision – or what steps she could take if she remained unhappy. That the landlord did not take such action was inappropriate, and a failing in the circumstances.

Complaint handling

When the resident referred her complaint to the Ombudsman she expressed dissatisfaction with the landlord’s complaint responses, and advised that they did not contain correct information.
The landlord responded to the resident’s concerns in a timely manner. However, as detailed above, the complaint responses did not demonstrate that the landlord had fully considered the circumstances of the complaint.
When the landlord issued its stage two response to the resident’s complaint, it offered her £100 compensation for the inconvenience caused as a result of having to complain. It was appropriate for the landlord to recognise that the circumstances surrounding the works at the property had given the resident reason to complain. However, it should reasonably have used the complaints process as an opportunity to acknowledge the inconvenience that was a caused as a result of the delay in the rewiring works commencing – given the service standards set out in its repairs policy. In addition, the landlord did not provide the resident with sufficient information about its investigation into her concerns about Covid-19 safety. As a result, the landlord missed an opportunity to try to put things right.
Furthermore, the resident had also raised concerns that “pollution” caused by the works had impacted the health of members of her family. The Ombudsman has not seen any evidence which shows that the landlord responded to these concerns. In the circumstances, it would have been appropriate to provide the resident with information about making a personal injury claim – either through the landlord’s insurance, or by referring the matter to court.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Scheme, there was service failure in:
1. The landlord’s handling of repairs at the property following a loss of electricity.
2. The landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about the conduct of its operatives and Covid-19 safety.
3. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s formal complaint.
4. The landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about damaged goods within the property.

Reasons

Although the landlord initially responded appropriately to the loss of electricity at the property, it departed significantly from its service standards once it was identified that a rewire was required. In the circumstances, it would have been appropriate for the landlord to have considered offering the resident some redress to put right the inconvenience that was caused as a result of the delay in the works commencing.
In response to the resident’s concerns about Covid-19 safety, the landlord provided some information about its risk assessment procedure. It also provided a reminder to staff about adhering to the relevant guidance, and to take precautions when attending properties. However, the landlord failed to demonstrate that it had fully investigated and considered the concerns that had been raised. The landlord has not provided this Service with evidence which corroborates its position through the complaint procedure, or which allows an assessment of its investigation into this matter.
The landlord informed the resident that it had forwarded her claim for compensation to its insurance officer. However, the Ombudsman has not been provided with any evidence which shows that the landlord’s actions were in line with its procedure. In addition, when the landlord communicated the outcome of the claim it did not explain whether the decision had been reached internally or if the claim had been referred to its insurer. The landlord also failed to inform the resident of what she could do to appeal the decision.
The landlord’s responses to the complaint were issued in a timely manner. The landlord also appropriately offered the resident compensation in recognition of the fact that she had cause to complain. However, the landlord missed an opportunity to acknowledge the inconvenience that was caused to the resident and her family as a result of the rewire being delayed; and it did not provide her with sufficient information about its investigation into her concerns about Covid-19 safety. In addition, while the landlord provided information about making an insurance claim for damage to goods, it would have been reasonable to provide some information in relation to making a personal injury claim.

Orders

Within four weeks of the date of this determination, the landlord should:
1. Apologise to the resident for the failings identified by this investigation.
2. Pay the resident a total of £550 compensation, comprised of:
  1. £250 for the distress and inconvenience caused by the delay in commencing the rewiring works at the property.
  2. £100 for the distress and inconvenience caused by the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about the conduct of its operatives and Covid-19 safety.
  3. £100 for the distress and inconvenience caused by handling of the resident’s insurance claim
  4. £100 for the distress and inconvenience caused by the complaint handling failures identified by this investigation.
Pay the resident the £100 which was offered at the end of the complaint procedure, if not previously accepted.
Provide the resident with information about how to appeal the decision that was made in relation to damage to her goods.
Provide the resident with information about making a personal injury claim.

Recommendations

Within six weeks of the date of this determination, the landlord should remind staff about the importance of recording detailed information in repairs records and logs.