Rochdale Boroughwide Housing Limited (202205649)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202205649

Rochdale Boroughwide Housing Limited

28 October 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 the resident’s reports about:
    1. a missed repairs appointment;
    2. the conduct of a staff member and the damage caused to the resident’s personal belongings.

Background

  1. The resident is assured tenant. The landlord is a housing association.
  2. On 28 May 2022, the resident first reported that his bathroom sink tap needed repairs. An appointment was booked for 1 June 2022.
  3. On 1 June 2022, the resident raised a formal complaint as the landlord’s contractor failed to attend on that day.
  4. The landlord provided its stage one response on 8 June 2022. It explained to the resident that a contractor attempted to attend the resident’s property on 1 June 2022 and posted a card into the resident’s post box with the details of when the contractor tried to call the resident. The landlord further informed the resident that another appointment had been booked for 8 June 2022.
  5. On 8 June 2022, the resident requested an escalation of his complaint as he was dissatisfied with the landlord’s response regarding the missed appointment. He also requested compensation as the contractor that attended broke a glass. The resident further complained that the contractor did not show identification on the day of the appointment.
  6. The landlord provided its stage two response on 17 June 2022. It reiterated its position regarding the appointment of 1 June 2022 and further informed the resident that its records included photographic evidence of the card left when the visit was attempted. Regarding the visit on 8 June 2022, the landlord apologised that its contractor had failed to show identification and for the broken glass. It offered £30 compensation as a goodwill gesture for any inconvenience caused to the resident.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

  1. The resident has advised this service that he considers the conduct of the landlord’s contractor to amount to a criminal offence. The Ombudsman cannot investigate nor determine whether a criminal offence has occurred. Such an investigation is more appropriate for the police, and such determination is more appropriate for the courts. The resident should refer this concern to the police in the first instance if he wishes to pursue criminal charges.

Missed appointment

  1. When a landlord attempts a visit, but is unable to gain access, the Ombudsman considers it best practice for the landlord to notify the resident of its attempted visit, and arrange a new appointment within a reasonable timeframe.
  2. In this instance, based on the records and photographic evidence provided by the landlord, the Ombudsman notes that the landlord’s contractor attempted to visit on the day of the appointment. It is unclear why there was no answer at the door, however, the landlord’s contractor acted appropriately by leaving a missed appointment card. This is in line with best practice.
  3. Following the resident’s complaint on the same date, the landlord carried out an appropriate investigation of what occurred. It informed the resident that it had attempted to visit, and arranged a new appointment one week late, which was reasonable in the circumstances and in line with repair timeframes in the landlord’s repair policy.
  4. In summary, while it would have been frustrating that the resident had to wait a further week for the repair appointment, the landlord’s actions were reasonable in the circumstances.

Staff conduct and damage

  1. The Ombudsman considers it best practice for a landlord’s staff or contractors to present identification when conducting repairs at a resident’s home. It is not disputed that in this case, this did not occur.
  2. Following the resident’s reports, the landlord offered an apology for its contractor’s failure to present identification, and sought to assure the resident that this would not occur again. In the Ombudsman’s opinion, the landlord acted reasonably by investigating the resident’s concerns, apologising, and reminding its contractors about the need to bring identification while working.
  3. Regarding the broken glass, the landlord’s compensation policy states that discretionary payments may be awarded when, because of the landlord’s contractor’s fault, the resident’s personal belonging get damaged.
  4. Following the resident’s reports, the landlord acted appropriately by apologising, and offering compensation.
  5. It is the Ombudsman’s opinion that the landlord in this instance, acted reasonably by apologising and offering compensation. In the Ombudsman’s opinion, the amount of compensation offered was proportionate and in line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance to reflect the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident. The Compensation, along with the apology, amounted to reasonable redress in the circumstances.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration by the landlord in respect of its response to the resident’s report of a missed repairs appointment.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 53(b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord has made an offer of redress with regard to its contractor’s failure to show identification and subsequent damage caused to the resident’s glass, which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, resolves the complaint satisfactorily.