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

Mount Green Housing Association Limited (202201610)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202201610

Mount Green Housing Association Limited

8 November 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 reports of an alarm fault and its subsequent offer of compensation.

Background

  1. The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord. The landlord is a registered provider of social housing. The resident has a number of vulnerabilities recorded that affect her mobility and health. Her property is part of an independent living scheme, which is equipped with a 24-hour emergency pullcord. This is linked to a community alarm that is managed by a contractor.
  2. On 12 September 2021, the resident’s alarm began to continuously dial out to the contractor, due to a fault in the system. The contractor attempted to contact the resident and when she did not reply, called an ambulance. The resident confirmed that she was not in any danger and that the alarm was malfunctioning. The contractor raised an order for an engineer to attend to the issue within 24 hours.
  3. The resident contacted the contractor seven times over the next 22-hour period, becoming increasingly distressed at the constant alarm noise. The contractor informed her that as it was a Sunday and thus outside of normal operating hours, an engineer could not attend any earlier than the next morning. This was because according to the landlord’s alarm procedure, the fault did not constitute as an emergency. As a result, an emergency call-out could not be authorised by the contractor. The resident eventually left the property to sit on an outside bench to avoid the noise.
  4. The resident made a complaint on 28 October 2021, as she was dissatisfied with how the landlord had responded to the alarm fault. She wanted the landlord to apologise for its poor handling of the issue and asked for compensation for the inconvenience and stress it had caused her.
  5. The landlord investigated the issue and determined that the alarm fault had been triggered by a leak in an above property. It concluded that an emergency call out should have been raised by its contractor, but that its procedures in relation to the alarm system were too restrictive to have allowed this to happen. To rectify these issues, the landlord raised a repair for the leak in the flat above and promised to review its procedure. It offered the resident £17.07 compensation to refund the alarm element of her independent living charge, and £50 in recognition of any inconvenience caused. The resident was dissatisfied with the amount of compensation offered and escalated her complaint.
  6. The landlord responded by completing its review of the alarm procedure, and changing how it defined emergency call outs. This enabled its contractors to be able to raise emergency out of hour call outs in the future. The resident was offered a further £50 in compensation. The resident escalated her complaint on 16 December 2021, as she felt that the compensation amount was unsatisfactory.
  7. The landlord undertook a panel review on 27 January 2021. It apologised to the resident for the stress and inconvenience that the alarm issues had caused her. It reiterated that as a result of her complaint, it had implemented contingencies to enable its contractors to authorise out of hours call outs. It stated that in future it would be more empathetic and offer an apology more readily when errors occurred. It offered an additional £14.70 compensation (total of £131.77) for the night that the resident felt unable to reside in her property.
  8. In her complaint to this service, the resident has explained that due to the stress and discomfort created by this issue, she was prescribed additional medication from her GP that has since affected her pain management. She would like an apology from the landlord, as well as additional compensation to fund various medical treatments.

Assessment

Scope of investigation

  1. The Ombudsman notes the resident’s assertion that the landlord’s delay in taking action has negatively impacted her health. While this may be the case, it is beyond the expertise of this service to reasonably determine a causal link between the landlord’s actions (or lack of) and the deterioration of the resident’s wellbeing. The Ombudsman has therefore made no comments in relation to this. Should the resident wish to pursue this matter, legal advice will need to be sought. Nonetheless, consideration has been given to the general distress and inconvenience that the situation may have caused the resident.

Alarm fault

  1. The landlord’s procedure for repairs to the alarm system, states that to enable the contractors to be called out of hours, the repair needs to fit within its prescribed definition of an emergency. This was described as “for emergencies such as fire, flood, or complete warden call system failure.”
  2. As the resident’s repair did not fit into the above definition, it would have fallen within the landlord’s category for essential repairs. The landlord’s repairs policy states that essential repairs are where there is a risk to the customer or property if the repair is not dealt with quickly. The landlord aims to make safe these repairs within 24 hours. It is not evident, however, that the landlord was informed by the contractor in order to raise a call out as an essential repair.
  3. In response to the resident’s complaint, the landlord acknowledged that its procedure in responding to faults with the alarm system was too restrictive to be effective. It stated that due to its contractors not having a wider remit to respond to repairs within their discretion, the resident suffered distress and inconvenience. It subsequently altered its alarm procedure, so that contractors could authorise out of hours call outs themselves. It has also altered its procedure so that the landlord should now be informed of emergencies (pertaining to the alarm system), such as instances of “flood, fire, or any other significant event that had the potential to cause significant distress to any resident, such as an alarm activating through the night.” This was appropriate, as the landlord identified its errors and took tangible steps to resolving the issues within its procedures.
  4. In its final complaint response, the landlord identified that it could have responded more empathetically to the resident. It acted appropriately by apologising to the resident for the inconvenience it had caused her. The landlord took steps to learn from this error in its complaint handling and stated that it would endeavour to deal with future faults more sympathetically.
  5. Given the distress caused to the resident, it was appropriate that the landlord offered the resident compensation. This acknowledged that the existing policies had exposed the resident to inconvenience and distress, due to their restrictive nature. The landlord initially offered to refund £17.07 to refund the element of the service charge relating to the alarm for the period the resident could not use her alarm system. It also offered £50 for the inconvenience caused. Subsequently, it offered an additional £50 for the stress and inconvenience and another refund of £14.70, calculated on one night’s rent (making the total compensation £131.77).
  6. In summary, while the landlord initially enforced its procedure very rigidly in response to the resident’s repair reports, it has taken reasonable steps to address the consequences this led to. The resident was adversely impacted by the landlord actions, however, the landlord has since acknowledged and apologised for the stress it caused her. It has identified issues within its procedure, and put these right prior to the investigation by this service. It has also offered reasonable compensation in-line with its own complaints policy. The compensation is also in line with this service’s own remedies guidance. It is therefore the Ombudsman’s opinion that the landlord offered adequate redress for the resident’s complaint prior to this investigation.

Determination (decision)

  1. In accordance with paragraph 53(b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord has made an offer of redress prior to investigation which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, resolves the complaint satisfactorily.

Recommendations

  1. The landlord is to reiterate its offer of compensation (£131.77) within four weeks of the date of this report, if it is yet to be accepted.