Anchor Hanover Group (202208627)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202208627

Anchor Hanover Group

12 December 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 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 the resident’s request to be reimbursed for the cost of an electrician’s call-out recharge by it to her, and its associated record keeping.

Background

2. The resident is a leaseholder of the landlord of a flat.
3. In November 2021, the resident reported experiencing a power cut at her property, causing her electric meter to show the incorrect time and issues with her heating. She stated that she had contacted her utility provider in order to resolve the fault with the electric meter, but that she was advised that they could take up to two weeks to attend the property, scheduling an earlier appointment if an electrician confirmed a fault with the meter. The resident explained that she therefore called the landlord’s location manager to receive advice on how to proceed with the situation.
4. The landlord’s location manager said that they then made the resident aware that they were scheduling an electrician’s appointment on her behalf, and that she subsequently attempted to block entry to the electrician, as she was expecting them on a Tuesday but they attended on a Friday. The electrician went on to send the landlord an invoice on 7 December 2021 for £144 for attending a timeclock fault connected to the resident’s electric meter, which they were unable to alter or diagnose as this was radio linked to the utility provider.
5. However, the resident explained that she did not authorise the electrician’s call-out during her initial telephone call with the landlord’s location manager, and that she was unaware that an electrician would be visiting her until they arrived, attempting to block entry for an unauthorised appointment. She stated that she then let them enter once she had had another telephone call with the landlord, reporting that it had said that it would have to pay a call-out fee regardless of whether they were admitted or not. The resident subsequently received a recharge invoice for the £144 cost of the call-out from the landlord on 12 April 2022.
6. A stage one complaint was then raised on 19 April 2022, in which the resident said that, as she was asking the landlord for advice on how to proceed in the situation and did not authorise the electrician’s appointment, she was not liable for their bill and so requested a refund of the £144 recharge from it.
7. The landlord’s stage one complaint response of 29 April 2022 said that it had acted in the best interests of the resident by scheduling the electrician’s appointment, and that it had confirmed with her that they would attend. It also stated that it would be unfair for its other homeowners at the location to pay towards the cost of her electrician, and it maintained that she was liable for the bill. In the resident’s final stage complaint of the same date, and in the landlord’s final stage complaint response of 31 May 2022, both parties maintained their previous positions as to her is liability to pay the bill and whether this decision was fair and in line with its framework.
8. The resident therefore complained to this Service, as she remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s decision that it was her responsibility to pay the electrician’s call-out bill, for which she sought a refund of this £144 charge. We then requested evidence from it that it had informed her of the electrician’s visit in advance, as well as of any other communication records from it at that time, but it told us that it was unable to provide this information. The landlord explained that it could instead only provide its subsequent conversation with the location manager, in which they recalled details of their initial telephone call with the resident at a later date.

Assessment and findings

9. The resident’s lease states that the landlord is responsible for all electrical fittings at her property, excluding the ones that exclusively serve the property. Therefore, the electric meter fault there was not its responsibility to repair under the lease, as this only served and affected her property, which meant that it was permitted to seek for other parties, such as her or her utility provider, to do so and to seek to recharge them for its related costs, including for the electrician’s appointment. As such, the landlord should have then identified that this was a recharge, for which it was obliged to follow its recharges policy.
10. The landlord’s recharges policy states that its location manager will usually recognise when the resident might need to be recharged, should talk to her so that she is made aware of the policy, and notify her that she will be recharged before the repair is undertaken. Depending on the situation, she may also be given the opportunity to complete the work herself, which the location manager is required to discuss with its responsive repairs manager before agreeing to this. The policy additionally states that, at the time of ordering an emergency or urgent repair, notification of the recharge should be provided to the resident by the landlord and, where practical, an estimate of the cost of this.
11. However, the landlord’s location manager told it that they acted appropriately in scheduling the electrician’s appointment, that the resident had authorised this, and that they had communicated to her that this would occur in advance, in line with its recharges policy. They described her as having then attempted to block entry for this, as this had occurred on the wrong day, without providing any evidence in support of their account. The resident nevertheless disputed this by explaining that she did not authorise the visit, and that she had attempted to block entry to the electrician on the basis that she had not authorised them to attend her property, or to complete works, instead only admitting the electrician as the landlord had told her that it would now have to pay for the call-out.
12. This Service would expect the landlord to have both acted in line with its recharges policy and provide evidence that it had done so. It should have shown that it had clearly communicated to the resident in advance that it was scheduling the appointment for the electrician to be called out, as well as that this was rescheduled. The landlord also ought to have evidenced that it had made her aware that she was going to be recharged, and given her an estimate for this amount. At this point, the resident should additionally have been given the opportunity to decide if she wanted to remedy the issue herself, which its location manager ought to have discussed with its responsive repairs manager.
13. The landlord is expected to keep full, accurate, up-to-date and comprehensive records of its communications, repairs works and contractors’ appointments. When there is a disagreement in the accounts of the resident and it with regard to its communications and actions following a repair report, the onus is on it to provide documentary evidence showing how it had handled the report of the repair. Despite a further information request from this Service, however, the landlord was unable to provide any contemporaneous evidence from the time of the events to suggest that its location manager followed its recharges policy in relation to the electrician’s call-out to the resident’s property.
14. For this reason, the landlord failed to demonstrate that it had acted in line with its recharges policy, which is also a failing in its record keeping. It has therefore been recommended below to review its record keeping processes in relation to recharges, ensuring that there is a clear audit trail for all of its communications around these, which provides details of specifically when contact was made, what was said, and what the agreed next steps were.
15. The resident additionally complained to the landlord that she felt as though she was not liable for the £144 bill for the electrician’s appointment, for which its complaint responses outlined that she was liable because the appointment had been confirmed to her. However, it failed to outline its recharges policy to her, and how this charge was able to be recharged to her under the policy, with evidence that it had followed this to permit it to do so.
16. The landlord should have instead referred to its recharges policy in its complaint responses, where it determined that she was liable for the electrician’s bill. It instead said that it would be unfair to its other residents at her location to pay towards the cost of this. While this Service appreciates the landlord has obligations towards its other residents, this did not permit it to recharge the resident without showing that it had followed the necessary steps in the policy to enable it to do so.
17. This provided unsatisfactory responses to the resident’s complaints, in which the landlord failed to supply the evidence that it used to make its decision that she had authorised the electrician’s appointment and was liable for the bill for this, as well as subsequently failing to provide such evidence to this Service. As a result of its poor record keeping, it therefore gave her inadequate complaint responses, and she had to go through the unnecessary resulting time and trouble of complaining to it, and then to this Service, about this.
18. It has therefore been recommended below that the landlord review its staff’s training needs with regard to their application of its complaints and compliments procedure, to ensure that all future complaint responses are comprehensive and refer to the policies and evidence on which it bases its decisions. As it also failed to consider exercising the discretion available to it under the procedure to compensate the resident for its actions or inactions in failing to deliver its recharges service to her to an acceptable standard, it has been ordered below to pay her £200 compensation.
19. This is in recognition of the landlord’s poor record keeping in the resident’s case, her associated time and trouble from its unsatisfactory complaint responses, and the financial cost to her of paying the recharge. This is additionally within the range of compensation recommended by this Service’s remedies guidance for failures that have adversely affected the resident, which the landlord has failed to acknowledge and made no attempt to put things right.

Determination

20. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s request to be reimbursed for the cost of an electrician’s call-out recharge by it to her, and its associated record keeping.

Order and recommendations

21. The landlord is ordered to pay the resident £200 compensation within four weeks in recognition of its poor record keeping in her case, the associated time and trouble from its unsatisfactory complaint responses, and the financial cost to her of paying the recharge.
22. It is recommended that the landlord:
    1. Review its record keeping processes in relation to recharges, ensuring that there is a clear audit trail for all of its communications around these, which provides details of specifically when contact was made, what was said, and what the agreed next steps were.
    2. Review its staff’s training needs with regard to their application of its complaints and compliments procedure, to ensure that all future responses are comprehensive and refer to the policies and evidence on which it bases its decisions.
23. The landlord shall contact this Service within four weeks to confirm that it has complied with the above order, and whether it will follow the above recommendations.