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

Sovereign Housing Association Limited (202209547)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202209547

Sovereign Housing Association Limited

4 March 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 report that her garden was unsafe.

Background

  1. The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord. The property is a house.
  2. In January 2022, the resident slipped on a grass slope in her front garden, which was the only route that could be used to move her wheelie bin to the kerbside for collection. She reported to the landlord that she felt it was unsafe. The landlord has confirmed that an operative inspected the garden on 27 January 2022 and made recommendations. It has not provided any further information regarding the recommendations. The resident has said that the operative who inspected the garden slipped on the unsafe area and agreed that the area was unsafe and that work needed to be done.
  3. The resident raised a complaint to the landlord on 14 April 2022, as nobody had contacted her with a start date for any work, and every time she rang the landlord it had told it was awaiting quotes and that the officer responsible was in a meeting. The landlord acknowledged the complaint on 19 April 2022, following the Easter weekend, and said that a manager would contact her. On 20 April 2022 the landlord’s internal notes said installing a concrete slope would create a similar issue as the degree of the slope would still be a “danger to [the residents]”. The landlord suggested internally that the wheelie bin be stored in the parking area instead. There is no record of the landlord contacting the resident with this suggestion.
  4. On 6 May 2022 the resident requested that the landlord escalate her complaint to stage two of its internal complaints process as nobody had responded to her. She advised that she was still seeing a chiropractor as she was in constant pain from the accident and wanted the garden made safe to avoid further accidents, as she was frightened of slipping again. The landlord replied on 9 May 2022 to say it had escalated the complaint to stage two as requested. On 26 May 2022 the landlord emailed the resident to arrange for the garden to be re-inspected that day. The notes from the visit say that due to increasing age and health conditions the resident and her husband were also finding the steps from the property too steep. The landlord recommended that the following options be discussed:
    1. Install new steps with a handrail to the existing grass verge/slope area, plus a small hard standing for the bin
    2. Install new steps with a handrail to the existing grass verge/slope area and relocate the bin to the parking area.
    3. Leave the existing steps but add a handrail and relocate the bin to the parking area.
  5. In its stage two complaint response on 31 May 2022, the landlord apologised for the lack of communication following the first inspection and for the inconvenience of it having to re-inspect the works after the member of staff who originally inspected the landlord left the business. It suggested that the resident contact her doctor and ask to speak to an occupational therapist (OT). It said the OT would be able to visit her, assess her needs and suggest something suitable to be installed to help with her mobility issues and getting the bins down to the kerbside. It said once the OT sent it their recommendations, it could action them.
  6. The resident contacted this Service as she felt that the landlord should carry out the work needed to make the garden safe. She said she was still in pain and having physiotherapy following the accident.

Assessment and findings

  1. The resident has referenced injuries she suffered as a result of an accident which she believes was caused by the lack of safe access in her front garden. The Ombudsman does not doubt the resident’s comments about her injuries and we acknowledge that this incident must have been distressing for the resident, particularly as she has continued to need treatment following the accident. It is outside the Ombudsman’s role to draw conclusions on the causation of, or liability for, impacts on health and wellbeing. This is because we cannot establish whether there was a direct link between the landlord’s actions and/or inaction and the resident’s health. This would be more appropriately dealt with as a personal injury claim through the courts or the landlord’s liability insurer. Although we would not investigate the effect on the resident’s health, consideration has been given to any distress and inconvenience the resident experienced as a result of any errors by the landlord.
  2. In January 2022, when the resident first reported that she felt her garden was unsafe, the landlord took appropriate steps to inspect the garden. The landlord has not provided this Service with the outcome of the inspection or of any contact the resident made to it following the inspection. However, even without that information, it is clear that it would have been appropriate for the landlord to have contacted the resident following the inspection and communicated what, if any action it would be taking. However, it failed to do so. This failure resulted in the resident having to contact the landlord herself for updates, and ultimately resulted in her raising a complaint on 14 April 2022. The landlord appropriately acknowledged the complaint on 19 April 2022 and advised the resident that it would look into the complaint and contact her.
  3. Although the resident says that she was told that the landlord was awaiting quotes the landlord has not provided this Service with any evidence that this was the case. In addition, the landlord’s internal email on 20 April 2022, recommended that the resident keep her wheelie bin in the car park area, and there was no mention of any work that would require quotes. On making the recommendation in the internal email, it would have been appropriate the landlord to have contacted the resident to advise her that it was not planning to carry out any work, and to discuss whether moving the bin to that area was a feasible solution. It should also have issued its stage one complaint response within the ten working days specified in its complaint policy or informed the resident that the response would be delayed. However, the landlord failed to do any of those things. This resulted in the resident contacting the landlord on 6 May 2022, (which was 13 working days after the complaint was acknowledged) requesting that it escalate her complaint to stage two of its complaint process.
  4. The Ombudsman’s complaint handling code (published on our website) sets out the Ombudsman’s expectations for landlord’s complaint handling practices. In line with the Code, the landlord operates a two stage complaints process. Therefore, it is normal practice for it to issue a stage one complaint response and then for the resident to be given the opportunity to escalate it to stage two to request a review if they disagree with the stage one decision. However, on this occasion as the resident was requesting that the complaint be escalated straight to stage two it was reasonable that the landlord accommodated this request and progressed the complaint to stage two, without having issued a stage one complaint response.
  5. Once the complaint was escalated to stage two, as the member of staff who originally inspected the garden had by then left the business, it was reasonable that the landlord decided to ask another manager to inspect the garden and report their findings, before responding to the complaint. During the inspection the resident told the member of staff that she and her husband both had health issues that affected their mobility, and that they were struggling with the steepness of the steps in their front garden. In view of this, the landlord appropriately highlighted in its notes that further assessment (of the residents’ needs) may be required, and also took appropriate steps to look for possible solutions that would address both the steepness of the steps and the problem of the wheelie bin.
  6. In its stage two complaint response on 31 May 2022, the landlord advised that the resident contact her doctor, and ask to speak to an OT. It also explained that this was because the OT would be able to make a home visit to assess the resident’s needs and suggest something suitable to be installed to help with any mobility issues and with moving the wheelie bin to the kerbside. It took appropriate steps to explain that the OT it would action any of the OT’s recommendations once the OT sent them to it. This was all reasonable advice as any work required, such as shallower steps and handrails, would be classed as “aids and adaptions”, and the landlord’s Aids and Adaption procedure, highlights that supporting evidence should be provided when making an aids and adaptions request. However, it would also have been helpful if the landlord had arranged for a housing officer to speak to the resident to explain the process in more detail and to answer any queries she might have, and to give her an idea of the timescales involved in the process. Therefore, this Service will be recommending that the landlord do that, if they have not already done so.
  7. The advice in its stage two complaint response was reasonable, and the landlord  also took appropriate steps to acknowledge and apologise that it had failed to communicate with the resident following its first inspection of the garden. However, the landlord failed to fully consider the impact that its communication failing had had on the resident. Following the first inspection, the resident had been left with the impression that work would be carried out, and there was clearly inconvenience caused to the resident in having to chase the landlord for updates on when this might happen. In addition to that, the delay in providing an update after the first inspection would have been stressful to the resident, who was worried that she might slip and injure herself again in the meantime.
  8. The landlord also failed to issue a stage one complaint response within 10 working days, in line with its complaints policy or to advise her that there would be a delay in responding. It is not clear if this delay was due to the member of staff involved in the complaint leaving the business. However, the delay led to the resident requesting that her complaint be escalated and it would have been appropriate for the landlord to have apologised for it. However, the landlord failed to apologise for the delay in responding to the stage one complaint, either its stage two escalation acknowledgment or in its stage two complaint response.
  9. In view of the failings identified in this report there was maladministration by the landlord in respect of its response to the resident’s report that she believed her garden was unsafe. Therefore, this Service will be ordering the landlord to pay the resident £250 compensation for the stress and inconvenience caused. This is in line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance, which sets out the Ombudsman’s approach to compensation. The remedies guidance suggests awards in this range for cases where there was a failure which adversely affected the resident and the landlord either failed to acknowledge its failings and made no attempt to put things right, or it acknowledged its failings but failed to address the detriment to the resident.
  10. It is also of some concern that, during the complaints process the resident mentioned health issues that affected her own and her husband’s mobility, yet when this Service asked the landlord if it had any recorded vulnerabilities for the resident, the landlord said there were none. Therefore, this Service will be recommending that the landlord contact the resident to ensure that it has an accurate record of any vulnerabilities in her household.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in respect of its response to the resident’s report that her garden was unsafe.

Orders and recommendations

  1. Within four weeks of the date of this decision the landlord is ordered to pay the resident £250 compensation for its maladministration in respect of its response to the resident’s report that she believed her garden was unsafe.
  2. The landlord is recommended to contact the resident to ensure that:
    1. The resident is aware of the process for obtaining supporting evidence from an occupational therapist and the timescales involved in all steps of its Aids and Adaptions procedure, if it has not already done so.
    2. It has an accurate record of any vulnerabilities in the household.