West Kent Housing Association (202123016)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202123016

West Kent Housing Association

22 January 2023

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 concerns about proposed changes to the alert systems at their property.

Background

2. The resident is an assured tenant. The landlord is a housing association. The property is Independent Over 55’s accommodation.
3. On 31 August 2021, the landlord sent a letter to the resident advising that it started a programme which involved removing hardwired lifelines (pullcords) and replacing them with stand-alone plug-and-play units, which would allow residents to have a connection to a monitoring centre. The letter further clarified that the resident had to options of replacing the lifeline with a plug-and-play unit for £1.86 per week, to choose not to replace at all or to purchase their own system. The resident, however, informed the landlord that he did not receive this letter.
4. On 10 November 2021, the resident contacted the landlord asking for additional clarification on the lifeline removal programme and requested to be called back by the landlord. The landlord contacted the resident on 11 November 2021; however, it advised the resident to talk with the Project Manager or another responsible member of staff. The Project Manager delegated the call back and the resident was contacted on 22 November 2021. The resident raised several concerns about the new safety system and asked to be contacted by the Project Manager directly.
5. The resident raised a formal complaint on 13 December 2021, about the landlord’s failure to contact the Fire and Rescue Service and the Project Manager’s failure to contact them directly.
6. The landlord issued a stage one response on 18 January 2021 and subsequently a stage one revised response on 26 January 2022. The landlord apologised if contractors had not been in touch with a schedule for when the works were being carried out. The landlord explained that the Project Manager would not contact the resident directly as the Project Manager had delegated this responsibility to their staff. The landlord also confirmed that the Project Manager and Building Safety Manager had liaised with the fire brigade between November 2021 and January 2022.
7. The resident requested an escalation of their complaint stating that:
   1.  They were dissatisfied with the Project Manager’s failure to contact them and that the advisor that called them on 22 November was not qualified to answer the questions they had raised.
   2. Despite the landlord being in contact with the fire brigade, the landlord had not provide information about what was established during that contact.
8. The landlord issued a stage two response on 24 March 2022, explaining that the Project Manager had delegated an advisor to clarify the resident’s queries and that a call back was done within the stipulated five working days. The landlord further explained that the landlord had been in contact with the Fire and Rescue Service and that it had sent an email with the relevant information. The landlord did not uphold the resident’s complaint.
9. The resident referred his complaint to this service as they were dissatisfied with the landlord’s refusal to provide information about the conversation it had with the fire brigade and requested, as a resolution, to be contacted by the Project Manager.

Assessment and findings

10. When a resident raises concerns about a new safety system, the landlord is expected to respond to the resident’s concerns in a timely matter, 20 days is considered a reasonable time. The landlord also has a policy which states that the landlord shall call back a resident within five working days when requested.
11. In this case, although the landlord provided the relevant information required by the resident, it failed to provide this within a reasonable timeframe.
12. The resident contacted the landlord on 10 November 2021, requesting a call back. The landlord called the resident on 11 November 2022, within its stipulated five working days. The resident was directed to the Project Manager. A delegated member of the Project Manager’s staff called the resident on 22 November 2021. However, the landlord only provided the required information on 26 January 2022, two months later. This is despite of the resident raising this formal complaint on 13 December 2021.
13. In its stage one response, the landlord explained that the Project Manager would not contact the resident directly as it could decide whether to delegate this to a another member of its staff. Whilst it is acknowledged that that landlord may have initially raised the resident’s expectation, in this instance, the landlord acted reasonably by clearly informing the resident that the Project Manager would not contact him and the call made by its staff was sufficient. The landlord can decide how to best manage its workload, and in the Ombudsman’s opinion, while it would have been best practice for the Project Manager to contact the resident directly, the landlord still acted appropriately by delegating one of its staff to contact them.
14. While the landlord may decide how to manage its workload, the landlord is still required to provide all the information requested by a resident and investigate the resident’s concerns. In this case, whilst the landlord ultimately provided the information requested by the resident on 26 January 2022, it took an unreasonable amount of time to do so. The Ombudsman would expect a landlord to provide the relevant information within a maximum of 20 days, which in this case, did not happen.
15. The Ombudsman also notes that the resident complained about the landlord’s staff not being qualified. In this case, the landlord acted appropriately by investigating the resident’s concerns, contacting its staff, and acknowledging that while the questions raised by the resident were not answered on 22 November 2021. It is also noted that the landlord subsequently sent an email to the Project Manager to request further information and the resident’s concerns were answered in the landlord’s stage one response of 26 January 2022.
16. The resident also complained about the landlord’s failure to contact the fire brigade. In this case, the landlord acted reasonably by liaising with the fire brigade between November 2021 and January 2022, and by informing the resident in its stage one response that it had been done so.
17. The resident also requested the transcript of the call and requested an escalation of their complaint as they were dissatisfied with the landlord’s refusal to provide details of the conversation between the landlord and the fire brigade.
18. The landlord has no specific obligation to provide information or transcripts about the calls between third parties, but it would be best practice for the landlord to do so where possible. Nevertheless, in this case, the landlord acted appropriately by investigating the matter, listening to the recording of the call and by informing the resident in its stage two response that the conversation that occurred between the landlord and the fire brigade did not involve any actions or agreement, but rather a request for concerns to be sent via email. The landlord also informed this Service that the resident has completed a subject access request and has been provided with a copy of the call and transcript.
19. In summary, while the landlord appropriately provided the information requested by the resident, the information was provided with an unreasonable delay, and the landlord failed to regularly update the resident throughout the process, as well as acknowledging its failure. This amounted to service failure in the circumstances. In the Ombudsman’s opinion, compensation of £50 for the delay in it providing the requested information, is appropriate to reflect the landlord’s service failure and the impact it had on the resident. This is in line with this Service’s Remedies Guidance.

Determination

20. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure by the landlord in respect of the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about proposed changes to the alert systems at their property.

Orders

21. The landlord is ordered to pay the resident £50 for any inconvenience caused to them because of its delay in providing information about proposed changes to the alert systems at their property.
22. This amount must be paid within four weeks of the date of this determination and the landlord is to confirm to this service when this has been done.