Wiltshire Council (202106981)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202106981

Wiltshire Council

5 March 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

The complaint is about the landlord’s response to:
1. repairs to the care-line pull cord system in the resident’s property.
2. the resident’s request to opt out of paying towards this system.

Background and summary of events

The building which the resident’s property is located in is a sheltered scheme with a pull-cord system. The pull-cord system managed by a careline allows residents to request medical assistance as well as allowing the careline to contact residents through the main box to carry out welfare checks. The resident became the tenant of the property in May 2020.
On 23 December 2020 the resident reported that the emergency pull-cord alarm system speaker was emitting constant electronic feedback.
The resident wrote to the landlord on 25 December 2020 to confirm that an engineer visited on 24 December 2020 and said they would report back to the landlord. He said that there were further instances of noises since, resulting in distress. The resident also expressed his dissatisfaction that he had to pay towards the system, which he did not want or need.
On 27 December 2020 the resident reported several incidences of the system disturbing him by emitting noises. He also expressed his concern that ‘no instructions for procedures to adopt in the event of a system closedown or failure have been given for an emergency situation’. The resident asked to be reimbursed the costs he paid towards the system during the period that it was not working.
On 29 December 2020:
1. the resident reported that the alarm system continued to disturb him.
2. the landlord’s contractor reported back to the landlord that it had attended the building “where the warden system has been damaged by two flats”, including the resident’s. The contractor reported that the cables and all pullcords to the resident’s flat had been cut which affected multiple residents.
3. the landlord confirmed that “the system has been damaged and can not be fully repaired till after the weekend. Although there was a fault on the system due to damage by the tenant… the system is now only partially working. We can book in a rewire and repair for next week but this is the earliest.”.
According to the landlord’s records, it booked in repairs for 1 January 2021. The landlord agreed to set up a daily welfare call to the block until the system was working properly.
Between 2 and 4 January 2021 the resident continued to report that he was disturbed by noise from the system and asked how he could raise a formal complaint.
On 5 January 2021 the resident said that in May 2020 he advised that the pull cord alarm had been severed at height (and was inaccessible to him) and a visiting technician had since confirmed that the pull cords were not connected to the careline system on occupation. He expressed his concern that since 23 December 2020 technicians needed to attend on three occasions due to loud electronic feedback during the day and night. The resident also said that the “system resulted in an unwarranted and illegal surveillance and invasion of privacy from 23 December 2020 to 2 January 2021”. The resident requested compensation and to be reimbursed the costs he paid for the system, noting that his request to opt out of the system was denied.
On 6 January 2021 the landlord confirmed that its repairs team would respond to the resident’s points, but it does not appear that it did. According to the landlord’s records, all flats had works completed by 10 January 2021 except the resident’s and two other flats, who did not wish to have the system restored.
The resident pursued a complaint response from the landlord on 14 January 2021 and reiterated his request for compensation to cover the charges from 11 May 2020 until present. He also asked for a statement of intent regarding the future repair, replacement and ability to opt out of the system.
In reply, the landlord confirmed that it was seeking an update on the pull-cord system and would also respond to the resident’s request for compensation.
On 29 January 2021 the landlord wrote to all tenants regarding the fault/damage to the pull cord system in December 2020. It confirmed that tenants who suffered a loss of service would have an adjustment to the rent account for the pull cord service for the period. The landlord confirmed that it was not an available option for tenants to ‘opt out’ of the pull cord system and any malicious damage to the units or cutting of wires by tenants would result in a recharge for any necessary repairs
The resident replied that the landlord did not address the issue that the pull cords were not connected to the ‘main call centre box’ on occupation and it did not mention the disturbances or “the illegal surveillance and broadcasting of private and personal activities and conversations” caused by the faulty system. The resident also said that “in terms of the statement that any damage caused by residents to the ‘boxes or wires’ will be recharged, taken as meaning that I will be billed for attempting to prevent the constant noise disruption and illegal activity, I am fully prepared for legal action. As such, I will take your email as the definitive response from [the landlord] that no compensation will be considered, in respect of the issues I have raised”.
On 2 February 2021 the landlord raised works to reinstate all remaining flats to the system and all pull cords.
The landlord advised the resident, on 3 February 2021, that it would respond to the complaint by 1 March 2021.
On 24 February 2021 the landlord wrote to the resident to confirm that it would attend his property on 3 March 2021 to repair the system, reminding the resident of his obligation to allow it into the property at all reasonable times for the purpose of inspections and repair and that it may take legal action for possession of the premises if the resident did not.
In the landlord’s stage one response, dated 25 February 2021, it confirmed that it: should have let the property with pull cords in place or the option of a pendant, did not provide comprehensive guidance regarding the pull cord system at the sign up, and did not answer the resident’s request for compensation for distress and a rebate and/or reimbursement of the daily charge of £2.92 per day in its correspondence of January 2021. The landlord also found that the resident was given further details regarding his tenancy, the property and building within the first month of his tenancy, was asked to arrange an appointment once he had moved into the property to fit the missing pull cords which to date, had not been arranged.
The landlord concluded that because it provided a pull cord system that was fit for purpose and was working in the flat at the start of the tenancy. It acknowledged the frustration caused by the malfunction of the pullcord system, however said it could not condone the damage that he resident caused to it. The landlord said that ordinarily tenants would be liable to pay for any damage caused to its equipment but on this occasion, it would not pursue a recharge. Finally, the landlord asked the resident to contact its repairs team to arrange a convenient appointment to replace the missing pull cords and enable engineers to reconnect the pullcord system to the resident’s home.
On 25 February 2021 the resident expressed that he remained dissatisfied that the landlord did not reimburse him for the system not being fully operational and did not compensate him for the distress and inconvenience caused. He was also unhappy that “the remote surveillance, broadcasting and/or recording of personal and private activities and conversations and their subsequent disposal, storage and/or use has not been mentioned. The resident asked for a copy of the full technical assessment of the system.
In further correspondence of 1 March 2021 the resident confirmed he had received the landlord’s letter of 24 February 2021 and was unhappy that he received less than 48 hours’ notice to give access for repairs on 2 March 2021. On 3 March 2021 the resident advised that he re-arranged an essential medical appointment and the engineer had not showed. He asked to add this matter to his complaint.
The landlord acknowledged the resident’s complaint on 3 March 2021 and confirmed that it aimed to respond by 9 April 2021.
According to the landlord’s records the remaining three flats (including the resident’s) were reconnected to the system after consultation with the tenants on 17 March 2021.
In the landlord’s final complaint response, dated 27 April 2021, the landlord confirmed that it would refund the resident for 13 weeks of the pull-cord careline charges. It confirmed that the system was operational when the resident moved into the property and the resident was advised to contact the team to arrange for the pull cords to be attached, as soon as he moved in and several occasions after; however, he did not do this.
The landlord also confirmed that the pull cord system was not used to carry out covert surveillance of tenants and the resident’s request for a copy of the technical assessment would be forwarded to the relevant team to follow up on.
The landlord advised that, although the contractor confirmed they were going to reinstate the system to the property on 3 March 2021, they seemed to be awaiting confirmation of this appointment. The landlord confirmed that it issued the resident an apology for this in a letter of 5 March 2021. The landlord confirmed that the pull cord issue had been outstanding since May 2020 it would possible and the visit was long overdue.
In relation to the resident’s report that on 10 March 2021 the resident found an engineer in his hallway and that the engineer was unaware that the appointment had been cancelled, the landlord spoke with the contractor who gave their account of events The contractor advised that the first entrance into the resident’s property was a mistake and apologised for this, and confirmed that the second disturbance was an attempt to open up dialogue to book in the return visit to complete the resident’s flat cabling. However, the resident would not engage in this manner.
The landlord acknowledged that the resident was disturbed by constant loud electronic noises and conversations of other people, however advised that the resident’s actions causing deliberate damage to the intercom and data cables hindered the fault finding necessary to reinstate the system and also to other flats within the block. It confirmed that it was not able to offer compensation in these circumstances.

Assessment and findings

Landlord’s obligations

The resident’s tenancy agreement confirms that the resident’s rent includes all charges, including the charge for the care-line system.
In line with the landlord’s repairs policy, ‘priority A’ and out-of-hours repairs are repairs which need to be completed immediately usually due to overriding health and safety concerns, or because of significant welfare concerns for the tenant or other people living in the property. All these jobs should be phoned through to the contractor immediately with a job number. A ‘priority B’ emergency is one that is regarded as that which if not carried out within 24 hours could cause damage to property or conditions prejudicial to health. Otherwise, ‘priority C’ repairs should be complete within five working days, and ‘priority D’ repairs should be complete within 20 working days.
Repairs may be recharged in a variety of situations, such as for repairs which are required as a result of wilful or accidental damage to the property or its fixtures and fittings, by the tenant, their family members, or visitors to it.

The complaint about the landlord’s response to repairs to the care-line pull cord system.

Considering that the landlord has put in alternative measures to ensure that the repairs needed to the care-line system did not impact on residents’ welfare, it would be in line with the landlord’s repairs policy to treat the repair as a general repair, to be completed within five or 20 working day. Preferably, the repair should be completed within five working days, considering the distress and inconvenience that the resident reported that the system caused while needing repair.
It is often necessary for landlords to complete inspections prior to completing repairs to determine exactly what is required and the evidence demonstrates that the landlord did attend within five working days and completed an inspection. However, the landlord’s contractor reported back it that the system had been damaged by two flats (including the resident’s the cables and all pullcords to the resident’s flat had been cut).
Although the resident’s correspondence suggests that he had damaged the system in an attempt to stop the noise that it emitted, which was distressing him, this ultimately resulted in further issues in the landlord completing the repair. Considering that the landlord has used its discretion to not charge the resident for the damage caused to the system, it would not be appropriate in the circumstances for the landlord to compensate the resident for any distress caused by any delays in it repairing the system.
Additionally, the evidence demonstrates that the resident had the opportunity to have his pull cords replaced at an earlier date, but did not.
Finally, the resident has raised some concerns about the system invading his privacy and monitoring him. The landlord has responded to the resident’s concerns, in line with good practice, and explained the puspose of the system, that it did not monitor the resident, and that the resident may pursue the matter with the courts if he considered that his rights were being violated. This was appropriate advice and, in the absence of any evidence that the system was monitoring the resident, reasonable.

The complaint about the landlord’s response to the resident’s request to opt out of paying towards the system.

It is understood that the resident’s complaint concerns the information he was provided about the service charges, and the landlord’s response to the queries he raised about opting out of the careline service and charge. To clarify, this Service cannot determine whether service charges are reasonable or payable. However, we can review complaints that relate to the collection of service charges or how information about service charges was communicated.
In response to the resident’s request to opt out, the landlord has confirmed that the residents of the building do not have he option to do this. The landlord responding to the resident’s request was in line with good practice and, considering the terms of the resident’s tenancy agreement and that there is no evidence to suggest that it is a feasible option for tenants to opt out, the landlord’s advice was reasonable.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration by the landlord in respect of the complaint about the landlord’s response to:
1. repairs to the care-line pull cord system.
2. the resident’s request to opt out of paying towards the system.

Reasons

In the circumstances of the repairs to the care-line pull cord system, it was reasonable for the landlord to decline compensating the resident for any delays. Considering the terms of the resident’s tenancy agreement and that there is no evidence to suggest that it is a feasible option for tenants to opt out, the landlord’s response to the resident’s request to opt out of paying towards the system was reasonable.