Sovereign Network Homes (202126632)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202126632

Network Homes Limited

12 July 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:

1. The level of compensation offered by the landlord following a missed repairs appointment by its contractor.
2. The landlord’s response to the resident’s complaint about the conduct of a staff member.

Background

2.     The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord.

3.     The resident reported an issue with a light in the communal hallway of her property on 26 January 2022. A contractor was scheduled to attend on 2 February 2022, however, the appointment was missed. The resident contacted the landlord 7 February 2022 about the missed appointment and was informed that the contractor had called in sick. The appointment was rescheduled for 11 February 2022. The resident contacted the landlord twice on 11 February 2022 regarding the rescheduled appointment. The contractor attended in the afternoon and repaired the communal light.

4.     The resident then raised her complaint about the missed contractor appointment scheduled for 2 February 2022 and requested £20 compensation. The resident complained that the contractor deliberately failed to attend the appointment and stated that she had been victimised by the contractor. She stated that this was detrimental to her mental disability, and that the contractor caused her inconvenience and distress. 

5.     The resident also complained about the conduct of the call handler she had spoken to on 11 February 2022. She complained that the call handler had been vindictive, made a sarcastic comment and had made a false accusation against her.

6.     On 17 February 2022, the landlord informed the resident that it had listened to her calls with the contact centre. It concluded that the staff member complained about was trying to assist the resident with her query and had not acted incorrectly during the call. The landlord stated that it would not be taking any further action regarding the staff conduct complaint.

7.     The stage one response to the missed appointment complaint was issued on 18 February 2022. The landlord stated that the resident’s details were supplied as a point of contact when the job was raised, and there was therefore an opportunity for the contractor to have made contact on the day. The landlord apologised and stated it would address this with the contractors during their weekly meetings. The landlord offered £10 compensation for the missed appointment which it stated is line with its policy.

8.     The resident escalated her complaint and the stage two response was issued on 24 March 2022. The landlord explained that the contractor had not attended due to sickness, and stated that it could not agree that this was due to victimisation or discrimination. The landlord apologised that the appointment was not attended, and stated that the resident was advised on the morning of the appointment that the contractor would not be attending. The landlord later acknowledged that this was incorrect, and that the resident had not been informed of this on the morning of the appointment.

9.     Within her complaint to this Service, the resident stated that the landlord had refused to increase the compensation amount after the contractor deliberately failed to attend and carry out the repair. The resident stated that compensation offered was not proportionate to the shortfalls in the service received and that she should be offered at least £25. The resident also requested this Service investigate the landlord’s refusal to take action regarding her staff conduct complaint. The resident stated that the call recordings should be listened to and a copy of these recording provided to her.

Assessment and findings

The level of compensation offered by the landlord following a missed repairs appointment by its contractor

10. The landlord’s compensation policy states its approach is to be fair and consistent and to offer similar remedies for similar complaints. However, it advises that each case is considered on its own merits and in light of the particular circumstances. The policy states that where it has booked an appointment with a resident and has failed to turn up without providing adequate notice of the cancellation, it will consider awarding £10 in compensation.

11. The landlord did not notify the resident that the contractor appointment scheduled for 2 February 2022 had been cancelled. The landlord acknowledged that it failed to inform the resident of the cancelled appointment, and offered an amount of compensation that is in accordance with its compensation policy for missed appointments.

12. The resident sent this Service a stage one outcome for a complaint she made to the landlord in 2015. The letter stated that compensation of £20 was offered for a missed appointment, which the landlord stated was in line with its compensation policy. As referred to above, the landlord’s compensation policy explains that it aims to be consistent, but that each complaint must be assessed on its own merits. The details of the 2015 complaint have not been considered as part of this investigation, and the circumstances of the two cases have therefore not been compared. Compensation of £20 may have been reasonable redress based on the specific circumstances of the previous complaint.

13. It is clear that distress and frustration was caused to the resident as a result of the missed appointment. It is accepted that the resident felt that the appointment was missed deliberately. However, there is no evidence available to support this position. The landlord has appropriately explained that the appointment was not attended due to sickness.

14. Where there are admitted failings by a landlord, the Ombudsman’s role is to consider whether the redress offered by the landlord put things right and resolved the resident’s complaint satisfactorily in the circumstances.

15. In this case, the missed appointment caused inconvenience to the resident as she was not notified in advance. The compensation awarded for the missed appointment was in line with the landlord’s compensation policy that was in place at the time, and was reasonable in the circumstances of this complaint. Amounts of around £10 to £20 are common in the sector as compensation for missed appointments, and while at the lower end of this scale, the landlord’s £10 policy is in keeping with this. The repair was in a communal area, and the appointment was rescheduled and the light was repaired just over a week later.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s complaint about the conduct of a staff member.

16. The Ombudsman will not form a view on whether the staff member’s actions themselves were appropriate. Instead, it is this Service’s role to decide whether the landlord adequately investigated and responded to the complaint, and took proportionate action based on the information available to it. For staff conduct complaints, landlords should carry out an investigation into the complaint and make a decision based on its findings.

17. The Housing Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code states that a landlord shall accept a complaint unless there is a valid reason not to do so. It goes on to state that if a landlord decides not to accept a complaint a detailed explanation should be provided to the resident setting out the reasons why the matter is not suitable for the complaints process.

18. It is evident that the landlord did not investigate the complaint through the complaints process. The rationale the landlord gave for not accepting the complaint was that the call recordings provided evidence that the call handler did not act incorrectly, and as such, no further action would be taken on the complaint.

19. The landlord took reasonable steps to look into the complaint by listening to the call recordings and outlining its findings to the resident in an email dated 17 February 2022. However, the complaint should have been handled through the complaints process, and the enquiries undertaken by the landlord should have formed part of the complaint investigation. The concerns raised by the resident were an ‘expression of dissatisfaction’, and therefore should have been dealt with accordingly despite what the landlord anticipated the final outcome would be. Not investigating the complaint on this basis was not a ‘valid reason’. The landlord’s decision not to look at the complaint via its formal complaint process has caused distress and frustration to the resident (although this is mitigated to some extent by the fact that the landlord did look into and respond to these concerns, albeit outside of the complaint process) and time and trouble pursuing the matter with this Service. This amounts to a service failure in how the landlord has dealt with the resident’s complaint about staff conduct

20. Compensation of £75 should be paid to the resident to remedy the distress and inconvenience caused. This amount is in line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance in which there was a failure by the landlord which may not have significantly affected the overall outcome for the resident.

Determination

21. In accordance with paragraph 55 (b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord has made an offer of redress prior to the investigation which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, resolves the complaint satisfactorily.

22. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was a service failure in the way the landlord handled the resident’s complaint about the conduct of a staff member.

Orders

23. The landlord is ordered to pay the resident £75 compensation for the distress and inconvenience caused by the landlord’s handling of the resident’s staff conduct complaint. The landlord should evidence compliance with the order to this Service within 28 days of this report.